The authority competent to order removal or dismissal of a civil servant is the authority that appointed the civil servant, and not the authority that is competent to appoint under the statutory rules.

ORDER :- The petitioner applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to set aside the proceedings that terminated with the order of the Inspector General of Prisons dated 30-4-1953 directing the removal of the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner was appointed a lower division clerk in the jail department in 1934. On 28-4-1947 he was appointed to the category of Reserve Deputy Jailors. That appointment was ordered by the Inspector General of Prisons. On 21-1-1952 charges were framed against the petitioner by the Superintendent of the jail where the petitioner was employed. The petitioner submitted his explanation. He objected to the enquiry being conducted by the Superintendent.

The Deputy Superintendent of the jail was ordered to conduct the enquiry. He eventually submitted his report to the Superintendent. After issuing a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, and after taking into account the representations the petitioner made then, the Superintendent ordered on 21-10-1952 the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner appealed to the Inspector General of Prisons, who substituted "removal from service" in lieu of the dismissal.

3. A memorial submitted by the petitioner to the Government failed.

4. The validity of the order of the Superintendent and that of the Inspector General of Prisons were attacked on two grounds : (1) The punishment of dismissal ordered by the Superintendent was in contravention of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution and was without jurisdiction.

The petitioner having been appointed by the Inspector General of Prisons could not have been dismissed or removed from service by the Superintendent; (2) Principles of natural justice were violated when the Superintendent, who had himself been virtually the prosecutor, assumed the role of a judge as well and awarded the punishment on the basis of the enquiry held by the Deputy Superintendent. Since the first of these objections appears to be well-founded, it may not really be necessary to examine in any detail the soundness or otherwise of the second of the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. It was common ground that though the Superintendent of the jail could have himself appointed the petitioner to the category of Deputy jailors, the appointment was in fact ordered by the Inspector General of Prisons on 28-4-1947. It was an equally undeniable fact that, it was the Superintendent and not the Inspector General of Prisons that ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service on 21-10-1952.

No doubt the ultimate order of removal from service, dated 30-4-1953, was passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, but that was on an appeal preferred against the order of the Superintendent dated 21-10-1952. If the order dated 21-10-1952 was one passed without jurisdiction, that the appellate order was passed by the Inspector General of Prisons would not cure the invalidity of the order dated 21-10-1952.

It was not the case of the Government that independent of the proceedings ending at one stage with the order of the Superintendent dated 21-10-1952, the Inspector General of Prisons, as a competent authority, ordered the removal of the petitioner from service after going through the prescribed formalities.

6. The question is, whether the order of the Superintendent dated 21-10-1952, which was subsequently modified on appeal by the Inspector General of Prisons, contravened the provisions of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution which forbids a dismissal or removal from service by an authority subordinate to that by which the civil servant in question was appointed.

7. My attention was not drawn to any reported case where the question that arises for determination in this case arose for decision. Under the statutory rules, the Superintendent was competent to appoint a civil servant to hold the post of a Deputy Jailor and the Superintendent was a