A dismissal order passed by an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority is invalid.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the decision of the III Additional District Judge, Kanpur, allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent and decreeing his suit for a declaration that his dismissal from service effective from 21-7-1969 passed by the General Manager of Government Harness Factory was illegal and ultra vires.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff joined the service on 4-1-1966 where his father was also employed. On account of some enmity the plaintiff was placed under suspension with effect from 21-1-1969 and was charge-sheeted on 22-1-1959 Reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by him on 3-2-1969 and after investigation of the charges a show cause notice dt. 29-4-1969 was issued by the General Manager to the plaintiff proposing penalty of dismissal from service and calling upon the plaintiff to show cause against it. After the plaintiff made a representation against the show cause notice on 12-5-1969, it was considered by the authorities and finally a dismissal order dt. 21-7-1969 was passed against him by the General Manager dismissing him forthwith

( 3 ) A number of pleas were taken in defence and the one with which we are concerned at the moment is about the authority of the General Manager to pass the order of dismissal as he was lower in rank than his appointing authority.

( 4 ) THE trial Court disagreed with the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff but on appeal, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that there was no available evidence on the record to establish that the Director General of the Ordnance Factories, who was the appointing authority, had delegated that power to the General Manager, Ordnance Equipment Factory and as such it upheld the plaintiffs contention and set aside the order of dismissal. The Court below has also decided several other points against the appellant but I am not satisfied about the correctness of the same. However, the only point that deserves any mention here is about the delegation of authority to the General Manager by the Director General of Ordnance Factories.

( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that parties counsel had made a statement on Paper No. 52-A on 10-8-1972 whereby the counsel for either side had waived formal proof of the documents filed en the record. It, however, appears that certain Rules were framed with the approval of the Ministry of Defence by the Director General, Ordnance Factories, on 29-11-1963, copies of which had been circulated to all the Administration Sections under the Director General, Ordnance Factories, Government of India. The sole reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Union of India is on this letter and the Rules, a copy of which was filed as Paper No. 58-C on the record on 9-10-1972. Initially it was sought to be urged that in view of the statement given by the parties counsel on Paper No. 52-A on 10-8-1972, the document in question did not require any proof. However, it was pointed out that the statement was made by the counsel on 10-8-1972 and the paper in question i. e. Paper No. 58-C was placed on the record only on 9-10-1972 and, therefore, the aforesaid statement could not in any case refer to waiving of the proof of this document. In view of this, the learned Counsel candidly did not pursue this argument any further.

( 6 ) IT is alleged that these Rules being Government Orders is a public document and requires no proof. It is also submitted that these Rules after approval by the Ministry of Defence had been circulated to various departments including a copy forwarded to the General Manager, Ordnance Equipment factory in question and as such it does not require any further proof. I find it difficult to agree with this submission, The document is a cyclostyled copy of the covering letter as well as Rules that had been framed. It also bears the signature of the authority who issued the same on behalf of the Director General, Ordnance Factories. These signatures are also