R.K. Gupta, J.

( 1. ) The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 29/30.12.1991 (Annexure A-17). By this order a penalty of removal from services has been imposed on the petitioner. This order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer after holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Petitioner was employed on the post of Patwari and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, which is Annexure A-l wherein the following charges were framed against the petitioner :-

( 2. ) A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and in the said enquiry the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Petitioner was also placed under suspension by an order dated 9.3.1989 (Annexure A-5) and the said order of suspension was ultimately rej.cted by order dated 12.2.1990 (Annexure A-6). Petitioner was again placed under suspension by order dated 25.6.1991 (Annexure A-7) and another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22.8.1991 (Annexure A-8). The charge-sheet Annexure A-8 contains the following charges against the petitioner:

( 3. ) In pursuance of charge-sheet dated 22.8.1991 (Annexure A-8) a departmental enquiry was conducted by Shri M.K. Tiwari, who was appointed as the inquiry officer. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 11.12.1991 (Annexure A-12). In the said show cause notice a penalty of removal from services was imposed upon the petitioner as the charges were found proved against the petitioner.

( 4. ) With reference to another charge petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 22.8.1991 (Annexure A-14). By order dated 29/30.12.1991 (Annexure A- 17) a penalty of removal from services was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner submitted an appeal to the Collector, which is Annexure A-18 to the petition. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the appellate authority by passing an order dated 20.10.1992 (Annexure A-19).

( 5. ) On the basis of the aforesaid factual backdrop of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a solitary ground that according to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No. 7785/2003 (O.A. No. 3466/1992 (Ashok Kumar Khare Vs. State of M.P. and, others) the Sub-Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner and the competent authority is the Collector. Since in the present case the order imposing the penalty of removal from services has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Khare (supra) the order of dismissal impugned in the petition is bad in law.

( 6. ) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer is the competent authority to dismiss the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order. In this reference the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Khare (supra) is to be considered wherein the ratio has been laid down as under: -

"Section 104(2) clearly envisages that the Collector is the appointing authority. It cannot be construed that Section 24 of the Code has delegated the power on the S.D.O. for initiating departmental proceedings for removing a Patwari. What has been stated in the Section 24 is that State may confer on any Assistant Collector or on any Revenue Officer certain powers. Needless to emphasise, that is for the purpose of the said but there is no such conferral of power on the S.D.O. to proceed against the Patwari. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the provisions which are enshrined in the Code, I am of the considered opinion that the order of the disciplinary proceeding passed vide Annexure A-19 which has been affirmed by the order of the appellate authority have to pave the path of destruction and accordingly they are lanceted. At this juncture I have been apprised that no action has been taken against the petitioner so far, by the Collector. When the whole proceeding is vitiated from the stage