( 1 ) THE petitioner joined service of the State Bank of Patiala as a Clerk in 1968 and was promoted to the post of Trainee Officer with effect from 1/08/1974. By letter No. Staff/genl/3749 dated 1/08/1974 the petitioner was informed that the Banks Board of Directors had approved his promotion as Trainee Officer under Group B Grade II with effect from 1/08/1974 in the scale of Rs. 500. 00-1,030. 00. By a subsequent letter dated 14/08/1975 he was informed that the Board of Directors had confirmed him as Officer Grade II with effect from 1/08/1975 in the said scale. When the petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Birhana Road, Kanpur, he is alleged to have committed some misdemeanour. By a letter dated 9/01/1980 he was called upon to explain the purchase bills in excess of his discretionary power of Rs. 1 lakh. The petitioner sent his reply to the said memorandum on 31/01/1980 contending that the purchase of the bills was within his discretionary limit. The petitioner was, thereafter, placed under suspension and was served with a charge-sheet. The Regional Manager of the Bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. The petitioner contested the enquiry and at the conclusion thereof the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Bank dated 27/09/1982. After considering the report of the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was removed from service by an order of the Managing Director dated 10/10/1983. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chairman, Executive Committee, Board of Directors of the Bank, but the same was dismissed on 26/10/1985. On the decision being communicated to him in due course he filed a writ petition in the High court of Punjab and Haryana which too was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order made in the said writ petition the petitioner has approached this court in appeal.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal before this court the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging Regulations 67 (g) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 (hereinafter called the Regulations), as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The submission in this behalf is that the amended regulation permits hostile discrimination between employees of the Bank and the employees of the State who are governed by Article 311 of the Constitution and who can be dismissed from service by the authority which made the appointment or an officer higher in rank but not by an officer inferior in rank to the appointing authority.

( 3 ) MR R. K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to grounds (C) and (D) in the memorandum of appeal. By ground (C) the petitioner has raised the contention that since he was appointed Trainee Officer in 1974 and confirmed as such in 1975 by the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors alone could punish him since it had initiated the enquiry. By ground (D) the petitioner contends that under Service Regulation 68 (1) (ii) only the Board of Directors i. e. the authority which appointed him could terminate his employment and not the Managing Director who was a lower authority. The petitioner, therefore, contends that on the aforesaid two counts the order of removal from service was liable to be quashed and the High court failed to appreciate the same.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate these submissions it is necessary to make a reference to the relevant regulations governing the service of thepetitioner. The expression competent authority as it stood before the Regulations were amended in 1979 read as under:" competent authority means Board in case of employees in the Grades of Sub-Accountants and above and the Managing Director in the case of Assistants, Head Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers, Godown Keepers and Subordinate Staff. "it is not in dispute that the post of a Trainee Officer was above that of a Sub-Accountant and, therefore, under this definition the competent authority q