The right of appeal is a substantive right that must be conferred by statute or rule, and in the absence of such a provision, an employee does not have a right to appeal against a dismissal order.

( 1 ) BY this Special Appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule (5) of the Rules of the Court the appellant v. K. Mahendra has assailed the validity of the judgment and order dated 9. 5. 95 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5484 of 1995 whereby the appellants submissions for quashing the dismissal order dated 8. 2. 1995 passed by the respondent No. 2 and enquiry report dated 16. 8. 1993 submitted by the respondent No. 3 contained in Annexures 2 and 22 respectively to the writ-petition have been repelled.

( 2 ) IN nut shell the case as set out by the appellant is that he was appointed as Personal Assistant in the establishment of High Court of Judicature to Allahabad in accordance with the provisions of The Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. However, on the ground of certain lapses on the part of the appellant, departmental enquiry was instituted consequently he was put under suspension by an order dated 29. 7. 92. The main charges of misconduct levelled against him are as under :

" (i) The appellant visited Nepal with the help of Judicial Officers of Pilibhit judgeship who were under the administrative control of Honble Administrative Judge with whom the appellant was attached as a Personal Assistant. His visit to Nepal was without permission of Honble Court. (ii) He is said to have stayed in the alleged Hotel at the cost of Judicial Officers of said administrative Zone. It is further alleged that the appellant stayed in Hotel and others places at the cost of Judicial Officers only by virtue of the being Personal Assistant to Administrative judge of that Zone. (iii) He is also alleged to have interfered in the local administration of Bareilly judgeship and exercised undue influence in appointments. It is also alleged that he leaked out the confidential information to the Judicial Officers of the said Zone for his personal gain and interest. His alleged unwarranted activities and interference in the local administration created rift amongst judicial Officers and thereby created administrative problems in the said administrative Zone. It is also alleged that the appellant gave an impression to the Judicial Officers of that Zone that if the petitioner becomes interested in their work, he can get their work done from the Honble administrative Judge. It is also alleged that he displayed himself as representative of administrative Judge. (iv) He is alleged to have displayed his authority and lowered down the image of Honble High court. "

( 3 ) ON these charges disciplinary enquiry was instituted against the appellant and Sri O. P. Srivastava, Joint Registrar of the Court was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

( 4 ) THE appellant denied all the charges levelled against him and pleaded not guilty of the charges but after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, enquiry report was submitted against him holding that the charges against his were proved and therefore, on the basis of the said enquiry report Honble the Chief Justice, the respondent No. 2 in the appeal, passed the order dated 7. 2. 1995 dismissing the appellant from service and the said dismissal order has been upheld by learned Single Judge by the order dated 9. 5. 1995 against which instant special appeal has been filed.

( 5 ) BEFORE entering into merits of the appeal it is necessary to discuss the scope of the appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.

( 6 ) IT appears, after abolition of Clause 10 of Letters Patent, Rule 5 was incorporated under chapter VIII of the Rules of the Court by Notification No. 345/viii-C-150, dated 6. 11. 1963, published in U. P. Gazette, Part II, dated 5. 12. 1964 which is more or less a reproduction of clause 10 of Letters Patent. Thus, the scope of Letters Patent is very limited and is available to the partie