S.N. Sahay, J. - (1.) There is a very short matter which requires to be disposed of in this writ petition in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who was employed as Assistant Grade I-(D) has been dismissed by order of the Senior Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India dated 7-10-1987 (Aunexure-12), after completion of disciplinary proceedings held against him. The order of removal has been passed under regulation 54 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. According to regulation 56 the penalty of removal can be imposed by the Board or authority specified in Appendix II in this behalf or any other authority {higher than the authority specified in Appendix 11) empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the Board. There is, however, s' rider that authority shall not be an authority lower than the appointing authority.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III in 1970 and was promoted in Assistant Grade II by Zonal Manager by order dated 5-11-1971 and thereafter he was promoted in Assistant Grade I by order dated 31-5-1980 by the Zonal Manager. It is submitted that the Senior Regional Manager, who has passed the impugned order of Removal is an authority lower than the Zonal Manager. The opposite parties have placed reliance on a notification dated 31-1-1986 Which has been filed as Annexure-A-1 to the counter affidavit. By this notification Appendix II was amended and it was provided that the authority competent impose penalties on employees of category III shall be the Divisional Zonal Manager/Senior Regional Manager. It is significant that the provisions of regulation 56 which require that the penalty of removal cannot be imposed on an employee by an authority lower than the appointing authority has not been amended by this notification. As observed earlier, the provisions laid down in the first part of Regulation 56 is subject to this condition. Therefore, there is much force in the contention of the petitioner that he has been removed from service by an authority lower than the appointing authority. The impugned order of removal is, therefore, clearly without Jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) The result is that the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of removal dated 7-10-1987, contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition if hereby quashed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;