ORDER This is a petition for a writ of certiorari or a writ or order of like nature under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. 2. The relevant facts which are necessary for the consideration of the point involved and which were not stated very clearly in the affidavits filed, were however not disputed before me in the arguments, as they became clear from the relevant files of the opposite party which were produced in the case for the purpose. These facts are: that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Manipur State Transport Department of the Government under Government of Manipur, Home and Development Departments (Orders by the Chief Commissioner) Order No. TP/5/51, dated 23-6-1951. The relevant file relating to this appointment also shows that the recommendation for this appointment was made by the Development and Revenue Commissioner (Ex-officio Secretary to Government) and it was approved by the Chief Commissioner. The petitioner along with some others was later put on probation with the approval of the Chief Commissioner and he was ultimately confirmed in this appointment by the order of the Chief Commissioner No. TP/33/51/32, dated 3-6-1953. It will be thus clear that all these orders were by the Chief Commissioner and it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was appointed by the Chief Commissioner. 3. In 1955 there was a departmental enquiry held against the petitioner by the Officer on Special Duty, Manipur State Transport Department and as a result of it the Officer on Special Duty dismissed the petitioner by his order dated 14-12-1955. The petitioner took an appeal from it to the Chief Commissioner but it also failed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of dismissal was illegal in as much as the Officer on Special Duty being a subordinate of the Chief Commissioner was not competent to pass such an order in view of the provisions of Art. 311 (1) of the Constitution, and in my opinion that contention must prevail. 4. On the plain language of that Article it is undisputable that the petitioner could not be dismissed by a subordinate of the Chief Commissioner who had appointed him. 4. On the plain language of that Article it is undisputable that the petitioner could not be dismissed by a subordinate of the Chief Commissioner who had appointed him. But it was pointed out on behalf of the opposite party, that at the relevant times, under the rules framed by the Chief Commissioner the appointing and dismissing authorities were, respectively, the Development and Revenue Commissioner and the Officer on Special Duty, Manipur State Transport Department, both officers of the same grade, namely, first grade, and on the strength of this it was urged that there was no breach of the provisions of Art. 311 (1), because the petitioner was dismissed by an authority which was of the same grade as the authority which was empowered to appoint him. The earliest rules to which my attention was drawn are, however, of a date subsequent to the date of first appointment of the petitioner (order of the Chief Commissioner No. FA/53-A/51/40, dated 25-9-1951). But even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that what is stated in this respect is correct, then also, nothing will turn on it. 5. Article 311 (1) does not refer to the authority empowered to appoint under the rules or orders then in force, but to the authority which actually makes the appointment, and expressly prohibits the dismissal by an authority subordinate to the authority which in fact made the appointment. There was thus a clear breach of this mandatory provision of the Constitution in the present case and the order of dismissal cannot be sustained. A similar view was taken in a recent case of Madhya Bharat (See Abid Mohommed Khan v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1956 Madh-B 259 (A)). 6. It was alleged in paragraph 9 of the petition that the petitioner was not given the copy of a certain document and also got no chance of hearing etc., after the notice contemplated by Art. 311 (2) had been served. But this point was not pressed before me and the opposite party also denied it by its affidavit. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into it. 7. The result is that I allow the petition and declare the order dated 14-12-1955 dismissing the petitioner and the order in appeal confirming that order of dismissal to be illegal and inoperative and quash them accordingly. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into it. 7. The result is that I allow the petition and declare the order dated 14-12-1955 dismissing the petitioner and the order in appeal confirming that order of dismissal to be illegal and inoperative and quash them accordingly. Costs of this petition shall be paid by the opposite party which will include a sum of Rs. 75/- on account of the fee of petitioners counsel. Order accordingly.