R.S. Jha, J.

1. This petition, which involves the question of competence of the Sub Divisional Officer to dismiss a Patwari from service has been referred to the Full Bench by order dated 8-4-2010.

2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the petition, are to the effect that the Petitioner is the wife of one Fattelal Jharia who was appointed as Patwari on 31-7-1978 and at the relevant time was posted as Patwari in Kundam Tehsil, District Jabalpur.

3. A show-cause notice was issued to him alleging tampering of 'Rin Pustika' on 23-7-1999 to which a reply was filed by him, not being satisfied by which the Respondent No. 3 issued a charge-sheet to the Petitioner's husband on 11-8-1999, which was received by him on 23-9-1999. The Petitioner's husband submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 6-12-1999. Thereafter, the Tehsildar Kundam was appointed as an Inquiry Officer for conducting the Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner's husband and as many as 14 witnesses were examined therein. The enquiry report was submitted by the Tehsildar on 13-3-2000 pursuant to which order dated 4-4-2000 was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer dismissing the Petitioner's husband from service. The Petitioner's husband preferred an appeal against the impugned order before the Collector which was also dismissed by order dated 12-6-2000.

4. It is stated that subsequent thereto the Petitioner's husband died on 14-6-2000 and, therefore, the Petitioner filed a review application before Respondent No. 2 on 2-8-2000, which was also dismissed by him on 5-8-2000. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following reliefs:

(i) It is, therefore, prayed that the family pension be given to the Petitioner.

(ii) It is also prayed that all the service benefits of the husband of the Petitioner be also given to the Petitioner treating her husband in service with retrospective effect with interest.

(iii) It is further prayed that compassionate appointment be also given to the son of the Petitioner.

(iii) (a) It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 4-4-2000 (Annexure A-6), dated 12-6-2000 (Annexure A-7) and 5-8-2000 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be quashed giving all benefits to the Petitioner with retrospective effect.

(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioner.

5. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 8-4-2010, it was argued that, in view of the provisions of Section 104 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the Competent Authority to appoint as well as dismiss the Petitioner's husband, who was a Patwari, was the Collector and in such circumstances, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vishwanath Prasad v. Board of Revenue 1964 MPLJ SN 38 and the recent decision of the Single Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar Khare v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2008 (4) MPLJ SN 44, the impugned orders be quashed.

6. On the other hand the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondent-State brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mangilal v. State of M.P. and Ors., 1995 RN 67, and submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer was competent to dismiss the Petitioner's husband in view of the fact that the powers of the Collector under Section 104(2) of the Code had been conferred by the State upon the Sub Divisional Officer by notification dated 9-10-1959. The learned Counsel for the State also placed reliance on the provisions of Rule 8 of the Schedule appended to the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1966') which prescribed that the Disciplinary Authority of the Patwari would be the Sub Divisional Officer who was also the Appointing Authority.

7. The learn