- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. By means of this Writ Petition, moved under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs : "i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash ing the judgment and order dated 5th May 1982 passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal (III) Lucknow, respondent No. 1 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). ii. To issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iii. To award costs throughout to the petitioners. "
(2.) THE respondent Rameshwar Prasad (the petitioner before the Tribu nal) was originally appointed as tempo rary Jeep Driver for a period of one month vide order dated 13-02-1981 passed by the District Development Of ficer, Dehradun. He was posted in Sahaspur Block vide order dated 01-08-1981. THE District Development Officer regularized the services of the respond ent (Rameshwar Prasad) as a temporary Jeep Driver. However, vide order dated 0/-01-1982, the District Magistrate, Dehradun terminated the services of the respondent (Rameshwar Prasad ). THEre after, the respondent (Rameshwar Prasad) filed a Claim Petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal (III), Lucknow challenging the order of termi nation of his services. THE learned Tri bunal allowing the claim petition quashed the termination order dated 0/-01 -1982 and held that the respondent (Rameshwar Prasad) would be deemed to be in continuous services as Jeep Driver with all benefits of pay etc. , Feel ing aggrieved by the above, the petition ers have filed the present writ petition before this Court. THE respondent No. 2 (Rameshwar Prasad) had died and, his le gal representatives had been brought on record as respondent Nos. 2/1 and 2/2. None is appearing for the re spondent No. 2/1 and 2/2. Heard Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petition ers contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the services of the respondent No. 2 Rameshwar Prasad would only be terminated by District De velopment Officer, Dehradun earlier known as Additional District Magistrate (Planning)/district Planning Officer (here inafter referred as D. D. O.); District Mag istrate, earlier known as District Officer (hereinafter referred as D. M.), Dehradun being a superior officer in rank and grade to the D. D. O. has a right and authority to terminate his services in view of the U. P. Community Develop ment Organisation (Appointing Author ity) Rules 1974 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred as Rules 1974 ). The case of the re spondent No. 2 Rameshwar Prasad before the Tribunal was that D. M. was not his appointing authority and D. D. O. was his appointing authority, as such, his serv ices could only be terminated by the D. D. O. and not by the D. M. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that according to Rules 1974, D. M. was the appointing authority for those posts, the minimum of whose pay scales did not exceed Rs. 280/- and the above Rules further reveals that D. D. O. was also the appointing authority for those posts the minimum of whose pay scale did not exceed to Rs. 230/ -. The pay scale of Jeep driver was Rs. 175/. In view of the above, the D. M. and D. D. O. be ing the appointing authorities were com petent to appoint respondent No. 2 on the post of Jeep Driver and by virtue of being appointing authority any one of them could terminate the services of the respondent No. 2, if the authority termi nating the services of the respondent No. 2 was not inferior and subordinate in rank and grade than the authority who appointed him. It is further pertinent to mention here that the post of D. D. O. was earlier as Additional District Magis trate (Planning ). The District Magistrate is also known as District Officer. He dis charges the function of D. M. as well as District Officer. The respondent No. 2 having been appointed by the D. D. O. , Dehradun was liable to be terminated by the order passed either by the D. D. O. or any other superior to him in the rank and grade. The D. M. , Dehradun being the superior Officer in rank and grade to the D. D. O. , Dehradun was competent to terminate the services of respondent No. 2. The post of D. M. is superior in rank and grade to the D. D. O. Article 311 (1) of the Constitution provides as un der : "art. 311. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Un ion or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an au thority subordinate to that-by which he was appointed. " According to this Article the au thority to terminate or remove cannot be subordinate in rank to the appointing authority and as such by necessary im plication the punishing, authority may be higher in rank to the appointing author ity. Article 311 (1) does not require that dismissal or removal must be ordered by the same authority who had made the appointment. That does not mean that the power cannot be exercised by the authority higher than the appointing one. If both the officers are appointing authority for the same post out of which two, one is superior and the other is in ferior officer in rank and grade, than the respondent No. 2 Rameshwar Prasad could be terminated by any of the Of ficer who had been designated as apt-pointing authority. D. M. being the superior in rank and grade to the D. D. O. ; was competent to appoint respondent No. 2 Rameshwar Prasad as well as ter minate his services notwithstanding the fact that he was appointed by D. D. O. who was inferior in rank and grade than him. It is also pertinent to mention here that D. M. is not the appellate authority in this case.;