JUDGMENT K. B. Asthana, J. - This is an appeal by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the order of removal of Sri V. D. Misra, respondent No. (1), from service of the department dated 23-4-1959 passed by the appellant. 2. The respondent Sri V. D. Misra was employed as an Inspector in the Central Excise in the Allahabad Collect orate. There were certain complaints against the respondent. An enquiry was held against the respondent on certain charges framed against him. The enquiry officer submitted a report against the respondent. The Collector then issued a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The respondent submitted his explanation to the Collector in answer to the said notice. The Collector was not satisfied with the explanation with the result that on 23-4-1959 an order was passed by him removing the respondent from service. Against the order of the Collector the respondent went up in appeal before the Central Board of Revenue as provided for by the rules. The appellate authority took further evidence as required by the respondent and eventually after hearing the respondent dismissed the appeal by its order dated 19th January 1961 and con-firmed the order of removal dated 23-4-1959. 3. In his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Sri Misra prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari or like writ or direction to quash the order dated 23-4-1959 passed by the Col-lector, Central Excise, Allahabad and the appellate order dated 19th January 1961 passed by the Central Board of Revenue and further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties not to interfere with the petitioners right to continue in the service of the Central Excise. The Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, and the Secretary, Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, were impleaded as opposite parties to the writ petition. 4. The main ground on which the reliefs were sought in the said petition was that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself and the order of removal was in breach of Article 311 of the Constitution. On behalf of the opp. 4. The main ground on which the reliefs were sought in the said petition was that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself and the order of removal was in breach of Article 311 of the Constitution. On behalf of the opp. parties it was pleaded that there had been no breach of Article 311 of the Constitution as proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. A further plea was raised that this Court had no jurisdiction to quash the order of removal dated 23-4-1959 inasmuch as it had merged in the appellate order dated 19th January 1961, passed by an authority outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition arrived at a finding on the facts and the circumstances of the case that the petitioner was materially prejudiced by the refusal of the Collector to supply the necessary copies to the petitioner or to permit him to peruse those documents and that infirmity in the enquiry amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. On the question of jurisdiction the learned Single Judge, relying on the division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Abul Hasan v. Works Manager, 1960 A.L.J. 727 held that this Court had authority to quash the order of removal dated 23-4-1959. Accordingly the writ petition was partly allowed and the order of the Collector, Central Excise, dated 23-4-1959 removing Sri Misra from service was quashed. 6. Sri Jagdish Swarup, the learned counsel for the appellant, challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge on all grounds which were raised on behalf of the department before the learned Single Judge. Some argument was made by the learned counsel to show that the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner respondent was erroneous, but later on he concentrated only on the question of jurisdiction. Sri Jagdish Swarup sought an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal to produce before us a decision of the Supreme Court which according to the learned counsel had concluded the question in his favour. Sri Jagdish Swarup sought an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal to produce before us a decision of the Supreme Court which according to the learned counsel had concluded the question in his favour. Accordingly we adjourned the hearing of the appeal for some time and when the appeal was again taken up for hearing Sri Jagdish Swarup produced before us the blue print of the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Civ. Appeal No. 383 of 1961 decided on 30th day of April 1962. On a perusal of this judgment of the Supreme Court it appeared to us that on the declaration of law contained in the said judgment, the jurisdiction of this Court to give any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present case, was not there. The ratio of the decision in the case of Abul Hasan v. Work Manager, 1960 A.LJ. 727, which was relied upon by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was no longer good law in view of the above mentioned decision of the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in the case of Collector of Customs Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Civ. Appeal No. 383 of 1961 decided on 30th day of April 1962 that it seemed to them that on principle it was difficult to draw a distinction between an order merely dismissing an appeal and an order reversing the order under appeal or modifying the order under appeal. In all these cases, according to their Lordships after the appellate authority had disposed of the appeal the operative order is the order of the appellate authority whether it has reversed the original order or modified it or confirmed it and the appellate order of confirmation is quite as efficacious as an operative order as an appellate order of reversal or modification. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that on principle when once an order of an original authority is taken in appeal to the appellate authority which is located beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, it is the order of the latter authority which is the operative order after the appeal is disposed of; and as the High Court cannot issue a writ against the appellate authority for want of territorial jurisdiction, it would not be open to it to issue a writ to the original authority which may be within its territorial jurisdiction once the appeal is disposed of, though it may be that the appellate authority has merely confirmed the order of the original authority and dismissed the appeal. 7. Sri S. N. Kacker appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that in the case of orders passed in disciplinary proceedings against the Government servants the doctrine of merger of the original order into the appellate order will not apply. The learned counsel relied en a decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 S.C.R. 595. He urged that the case of Collector of Customs v. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Civ. Appeal No. 383 of 1961 decided on 30th day of April 1962, referred to above, does not have the effect of overruling the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 S.C.R. 595, since it still continues to be good law, the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Abul Hasan v. Works Manager, 1960 A.LJ. 727, is in no way affected and this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Collector of Central Excise at Allahabad and quash the order of removal of the respondent dated 23-4-1959. In our judgment this submission of Sri Kacker is not sound. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have noticed the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 S.C.R. 595, as appears from the judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Civ. In our judgment this submission of Sri Kacker is not sound. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have noticed the case of State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 S.C.R. 595, as appears from the judgment in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Civ. Appeal No. 383 of 1961 decided on 30th day of April 1962 Their Lordships have observed that Mohammad Nooh's case, 1958 S.C.R. 595 was not concerned with the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where the original authority is within such territorial jurisdiction, while the appellate authority is not and must therefore be confined to the special facts with which it was dealing. It appears to us that Mohammad Nooh's case, 1958 S.C.R. 595 is distinguishable. In that case an order of dismissal which was passed before the coming into force of the Constitution was sought to be quashed. An argument was made that since the appellate order was passed after the coming into force of the Constitution and the original order merged into the appellate order and it was only the appellate order which was operative, no question of retrospective application of the Constitution arose. This argument was repelled by their Lordships in Mohammad Nooh's case, 1958 S.C.R. 595 on the ground that in effect even f the principle of merger were applicable to an order of dismissal of the Government servant the fact would still remain that the dismissal was before the Constitution came into force and therefore the person dismissed could not take advantage of the provisions of the Constitution so far as that dismissal was concerned. In Mohammad Nooh's case, 1958 S.C.R. 595 the original authority as well as the appellate authority were within the territorial jurisdiction of one High Court. In our opinion, the Supreme Court has now clearly laid down in the case of Collector of Customs v. The East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Civ. Appeal No. 383 of 1961 decided on 30th day of April 1962 that the doctrine of merger of the original order in the appellate order would apply whenever a question arises for quashing of the original order passed by a Tribunal or an officer within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court in cases where that order has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court. We hold, therefore, that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue any writ against the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, for the reason that the respondent had appealed against the order of the Collector and his appeal was decided by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, which is an authority outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. 8. As we are deciding the appeal only on the question of jurisdiction it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the point whether reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner respondent at the enquiry held against him. 9. The result is that this appeal succeeds. The judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30-1-1962 is set aside. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties are ordered to bear their own costs throughout.