JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - These two writ petitions have been filed by the Zila Parishad, Hardoi praying in each that the order of the Commissioner setting aside the dismissal of the Panchayat Secretary and directing his reinstatement, be quashed.

2. In Writ No. 3129 of 1968 the facts are that Hari Prasad Bajpai, respondent No. 3, was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on 19th August, 1955, in a temporary capacity. The appointment was liable to be terminated on three months' notice. After the coming into force of the Zila Parishad and Kshettra Samitis Act, the Zila Parishad became the appointing authority of Panchayat Secretaries. In view of Section 35 of the Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam read with schedule III and entry relating to Section 25-A, the Zila Parishad was given the power to appoint Panchayat Secretaries and to exercise administrative control over them in respect of promotion. dismissal and removal, but the Kshettra Samiti was given the power to exercise administrative control in respect of leave, transfer and other disciplinary actions, which does not include appointment, promotion, dismissal and removal. It is not in dispute that the Zila Parishad delegated this power to its Adhyaksh; so the Adhyaksh became tho appointing authority of the Panchayat Secretary, (which are dealt with by Section 25-A of the Panchayat Raj Act) .

3. In exercise of this power the Adhyaksh terminated the service of respondent No. 3 by an order passed on 16th January, 1965, by giving him three months notice. Aggrieved by this order dated 16th January, 1965, Mr. Baipai went in appeal to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate dismissed the appeal on 7-11-1966. Thereafter, Mr. Bajpai filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow division. The appeal purported to be against the order of termination as well as against the order of the District Magistrate dismissing his appeal. The Commissioner on 19th March, 1968, allowed the appeal. He held that the services of the appellant were terminated for reasons of inefficiency and charges of misconduct. Under the circumstances, he should have been dealt with under the punishment and Appeal Rules. Termination of his service without following the prescribed procedure was invalid. He directed the reinstatement of the appellant, though he himself inflicted a 'minor punishment on him.

4. The order of the Commissioner has been challenged on the grounds that the order of termination was not appealable, and secondly the appeal did not lay to the Commissioner. Section 25-A Panchayat Raj Act provides for appeals. Sub-sec. (1) of Section 25-A provides for appointment of Secretary for every Gaon Panchayat. Under sub-sec. (2) the Secretaries are put under the administrative control of the prescribed authority in matters of leave, promotion, transfer, dismissal, removal and other disciplinary action. The proviso then says :

"Provided that an order of the prescribed authority removing or dismissing a Secretary shall be appealable within a period and in the manner to be prescribed, to the District Magistrate, or if any authority is prescribed in this behalf to such other authority."

Though under sub-sec. (2) the Secretary is liable to administrative control in several matters like leave, promotion, transfer, dismissal, removal and other disciplinary action, orders of dismissal and removal alone have been made appealable. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that removal or dismissal would in the context of the said provision of the Act, mean termination of service by way of punishment for some misconduct or some other cause. But it would not include a termination simplicitor. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel. The rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act corroborate this interpretation. Rule 174 of the Panchayat Raj Rules specifically provides for determination of period of office of a servant. Under clause (d) the office determines when the servant has been given by th