( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order made by the Asst Commr and sub-Divl Magistrate, Bijapur Divn, Bijapur, (1130-1-1974 (Ext. 'b)' by which the petitioner has been removed from service on trie ground that he is guilty of misconduct. ( 2 ) THOUGH several grounds have been raised in the writ petition, the only contention urged by Sri Chhatre, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order has been passed by an authority who had no competence to pass the same. It was urged that the power to remove a Police Patil for misconduct can be exercised only by the Dist Magistrate under S. 137 (2) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and not by the Asst Commr and Sub-Divl Magistrate. ( 3 ) SECTION 137 of the Act, reads as follows :" 137. Penalties for neglect of duty and punishment- (1) The Dist magistrate or the authorised officer may for misconduct, neglect of duty, or for any other sufficient cause, impose on any police patil or member of the village police liable to be called upon for the performance of police duties, any of the following punishments, namely: - (1) fine not exceeding one-fourth of the annual emoluments of his office ; (ii) suspension from office for a period not exceeding six months. (2) Subject to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constn. the Dist magistrate may, for misconduct, neglect of duty or other sufficient cause, impose on any police patil or member of the village police liable to be called for the performance of police duties the punishment of removal or dismissal from office. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-sec (1) or (2), may within sixty days from the date of receipt of such order, appeal to the prescribed officer and the decision of the prescribed officer on such appeal shall be final. "the expression 'district Magistrate' has been defined in S. 2 (6) (a) of the act to mean, the Deputy Commr of the revenue district exercising the powers of a Dist Magistrate or an Addl Dist Magistrate. The expression 'sub-Divl Magistrate' has been de,fined to mean the Asst Commr in charge of a revenue sub-division exercising the powers of a Magistrate of the first class. The expression 'sub-Divl Magistrate' has been de,fined to mean the Asst Commr in charge of a revenue sub-division exercising the powers of a Magistrate of the first class. ( 4 ) IT is clear from S. 137 of the Act that whereas the Dist Magistrate or the authorised officer may impose the punishment of fine not exceeding one-fourth of the annual emoluments of his (police patel's) office and suspension from office for a period not exceeding six months, removal or dismissal from service for misconduct, neglect of duty or other sufficient cause, are punishments which may be imposed only by the District magistrate. ( 5 ) IT was contended that as the punishment imposed in this case is of dismissal from service for misconduct, the order passed by the Asst commr and Sub-Divl Magistrate is clearly without competence. But it was contended by Sri Brahmarayappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader appearing for respondent that the Sub-Divl Magistrate has been clothed with the power of dismissal from service as a result of delegation of power by the Dist Magistrate with the sanction of the Govt made in accordance with S. 131 of the Act. It was contended that as the Dist Magistrate has delegated his power in this behalf to the Sub. Divl. Magistrate, the latter had the necessary competence to pass the impugned order under sub-sec (2) of S. 137 of the Act. It is necessary to extract the provisions of S. 131 of the Act, which reads as follows :" 131. Power to delegate-The Dist Magistrate with the sanction of the Gqvt delegate any of his powers under this Chapter to- (i) the Superintendent; and (ii) any officer of the Revenue Dept in the, district exercising the powers of a Magistrate. Such officer is hereinafter referred to in this Chapter as ' the authorised officer. "secs. 131 and 137 are both included in Chap. IX of the Act. The aforesaid provisions regarding delegation of powers by the Dist Magistrate contained in S. 131 have special features. Though S. 131 empowers the Dist Magistrate to delegate any of his powers under Chap. IX to the specified officer with the sanction of the Govt, it appears that the officer to whom such powers are delegated is not entitled to exercise all the powers of the Dist magistrate under Chap. IX. Though S. 131 empowers the Dist Magistrate to delegate any of his powers under Chap. IX to the specified officer with the sanction of the Govt, it appears that the officer to whom such powers are delegated is not entitled to exercise all the powers of the Dist magistrate under Chap. IX. The latter part of S. 131 expressly provides that the officer to whom the powers of Dist Magistrate are delegated is referred to in the Chap. IX as 'the authorised officer'. The clear effect of " delegation under S. 131 of the Act is to constitute an officer to whom the power has been delegated 'the authorised officer'. Under S. 131 the delegates becomes 'the authorised officer' and he can only eixercise such of the powers under Chap. IX which 'the authorised officer' can exercise. In other words, he cannot exercise all the powers of Dist Magistrate under chap. IX. It is precisely for this reason that a distinction has been made in sub-secs (1)and (2) of S. 137 of the Act. Whereas certain minor punishments can be imposed on the police patel by the Dist Magistrate as also by 'the authorised officer', sub-sec (2) of S. 137 makes it clear that major punishments of removal or dismissal from office can only be imposed by the Dist Magistrate and not by 'the authorised officer'. If the intention of the Legislature was otherwise, sub-sec (2) should have been worded similar to sub-sec (1) of S. 137. Similarly, in S. 133 of the Act, the Legislature contemplates the exercise of the powers by the, Disit Magistrate as also 'the authorised officer'. The, scheme of Chap. IX and the language of S. 131 of the Act make, it clear that the. officer to whom the powers are delegated under S. 131 of the Act cannot>eixercise, all the powers of the Dist Magistrate, and that he can only exercise such of the powers under Chap. IX which are conferred on 'the authorised officer'. As the power under sub-sec (2) of S. 137 is not conferred on 'the authorised officer', the said power could be exercised only by the Dist Magistrate and not by the Sub-Divl magistrate, who is a delegatee under S. 131 of the Act. Hence, I hold that the impugned order made by the Sub-Divl Magistrate is without competence. As the power under sub-sec (2) of S. 137 is not conferred on 'the authorised officer', the said power could be exercised only by the Dist Magistrate and not by the Sub-Divl magistrate, who is a delegatee under S. 131 of the Act. Hence, I hold that the impugned order made by the Sub-Divl Magistrate is without competence. ( 6 ) IT is necessary to advert to the contention of Sri Brahmarayappa, that I should decline to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constn as the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. Thei petitioner has stated that there is no connection between the show cause notice issued to him d/10-4-1964 (Ext. 'a') and the impugned order. In para 3 of statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was served with another show cause notice which fact has been suppressed by the petitioner. That show cause notice has not been produced by the respondent. Sri Brahmarayappa has also not placed the same before me for perusal during the course of arguments. The show cause notice referred to in para 3 of the statement of objections, is stated to have been served on the petitioner on 30th October, 1973, wheras in the impugned order there is reference to show cause notice having been served on the petitioner on 29th Oct 1973. It is, therefore, not possible to regard the statement as accurate one. As the said statement is not accurate, there is no foundation for the assertion that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order d/. 30-1-74 made by the Asst Commr and Sub-Divl Magistrate, bijapur Divn, Bijapur (Ext. 'b'), is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that this does not preclude the competent authority from taking action in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .