JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:—Heard. Special leave granted in both the matters. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeals are being disposed of.

2. This order will dispose of the two appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 450 of 1990 and S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7584 of 1991.

3. In the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 450 of 1990 the matter has arisen out of a second appeal (Second Appeal No. 621 of 1988) decided by a single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 19th December, 1988. As per the facts found by the learned single Judge the respondent was dismissed from service by the Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force after the departmental enquiry. After exhausting the departmental remedies he filed a suit for declaration stating that the order of dismissal was void as it was passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

4. It was alleged by him that he was appointed in the year 1965 as Rakshak by the Assistant Security Officer and the appointment was made after the approval of the Chief Security Officer. The order of removal dated 20th August, 1980 was passed by the Assistant Security Officer. The suit was contested by the Union of India (appellant No. 1 herein) and it was pleaded that the respondent herein was removed by the competent authority. The learned single Judge noted the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The trial Court took the view that there was no delegation of powers in favour the Assistant Security Officer and that the Chief Security Officer was the appointing authority and consequently the dismissal order was passed, by the incompetent authority and was, therefore, void. The High Court upheld that decision.

5. Appeal arising out of S. L. P. (Civil) No. 7584 of 1991 arose out of a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 3537 of 1983) decided by a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 26th February, 1990. The Division Bench took the view that the order of removal passed against the respondent herein was by a subordinate officer to that of the appointing authority i.e. the Chief Security Officer and is in patent violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. In this view of the matter the removal order dated 5th August, 1982 as well as the appellate order dated 24th January, 1983, were quashed.

6. The Union of India have come up in the present appeals.

7. In Civil Appeal arising, out of S. L. P. (C) No. 7584 of 1991 the authority has produced before us the original order of appointment of the respondent herein along with 33 others passed by the Assistant Security Officer, N. E. Railway, Lucknow Junction dated 21 February, 1973 whereby the respondent herein, subject to his passing the prescribed training for R. P. F. Rakshaks, and having been found medically fit, was enlisted as Rakshak. In pursuance of this order the respondent had undergone a training and thereafter posted as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. The order of removal dated 5th August, 1982 was also passed by the Assistant Security Officer. We. have already noticed the reason for the Allahabad High Court to quash the impugned order of removal.

8. It is common case that there was no specific order of delegation by the Chief Security Officer to the Assistant Security Officer delegating the power to make appointment of Rakshaks and the delegation, in fact; by way of abundant caution was made only in 1974.

9. The decision in both the appeals turns on the scope of Sections 6, 9 and 21 of the Act read with Rule 20 of the Rules. Sections 6, 9 and 21 of the Act provide as under :-

"Section 6 : Appointment of members of the Force - The appointment of members of the Force shall rest with the Chief Security Officers who shall exercise that power in accordance with rules made under this Act.

Provided that the power