D. Falshaw, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the State of Punjab and others against the order of Harbans Singh, J. accepting a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sant Singh Respondent and quashing an order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, removing him from service.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that Sant Singh was appointed as a Sub -Inspector in the Consolidation Department in Pepsu in June 1954 by the then Settlement Commissioner, Pepsu. After the merger Pepsu and Punjab in 1956 Sant Singh continued to hold the post of Sub -Inspector by integration into the Punjab Consolidation Department, but after an enquiry in which certain charges of misconduct were found to have been established against Sant Singh and he had been called on to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service an order dismissing him from service was passed on 29th July 1960 by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. In his petition under Article 226 of the, Constitution Sant Singh challenged the order of his dismissal on various grounds Including mala fides, but principally the question was whether the order was bad for contravening the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution to the effect that no civil servant shall be dismissed -or removed by an, authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed It is not even now contended that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab is in any way subordinate or inferior in status to the Settlement Commissioner, Pepsu, whose post had ceased to exist when the merger took place. Reliance is, however, placed, on the provisions of Section 116 of the Central Act, the States Reorganisation Act, XXXVII of 1950. Section 116 deals with the continuance of officers in the same posts and Sub -section (1) reads: Every person who immediately before the appointed day is holding or discharging the duties of any post or office in connection with the affairs of the Union or of an existing State in any area which on that day falls within another existing State or a new State or a Union Territory shall except where by virtue or in consequence of the provisions of this Act such post or office ceases to exist on that day, continue to hold the same post or office in the other existing State or new State or Union Territory in which such area is included on that day, and shall be deemed as from that day to have been duly appointed to such post or office by the Government of or other appropriate authority in such State, or by Central Government or other appropriate authority in such Union Territory, as the "case may be".
(3.) IT is not disputed that on the 1st of November 1956 when the merger took place no such officers as Sub -Inspectors were, being appointed in the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Department and so neither the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab nor any other officer had the power to appoint Sub -Inspectors. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge has found that there was no "other appropriate authority" in the State within the meaning of the words used in Section 116(1) who could have appointed the Petitioner as a Sub -Inspector and that therefore he must be deemed to have been appointed by the State Government. From this followed that the only authority which could properly dismiss him from service was the State Government.;