Short Note : 1. This petition is at the instance of a constable in the Excise Department who has been dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct having been found proved after necessary inquiry. The misconduct found to be established was of demanding liquor without payment from an excise contractor and misbehaving with him on his refusal to oblige. The other charge was with respect to making wild allegations against his superior officer amounting to indisciplined conduct. Held : In view of the limited scope of interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters, the only point which could be and was urged in the present case was that the order of dismissal was made by an authority inferior in rank to the authority which appointed the petitioner on the post of constable. It is not disputed that the petitioner was initially appointed as a peon in the Excise Department by the District Excise Officer. It is also not disputed that thereafter he was appointed on promotion as excise constable by the Excise Commissioner. Undisputedly the post from which he has been removed on dismissal was of excise constable. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the order of dismissal made by the Collector was invalid being in contravention of the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the Collector is inferior in rank to the Excise Commissioner. 2. On behalf of the State, the learned Government Advocate contended that since by virtue of the subsequent delegation of powers, as is evident from Annexures rule 11 and rule 12, the Collector was duly empowered to make appointment of excise constable in the district, the order of dismissal passed by the Collector was competent. It is true that the necessary powers to make appointment of excise constables in the district have been vested in the Collector by notification dated 27-9-1965, but this does not cure the defect in the present case. It is evident from the last but one para of the order of the appellate Court that the petitioner was appointed as excise constable vide appointment order No. Est/1/337 dated 20-3-1961 by the Excise Commissioner. On that date, the Collector had no power to appoint excise constable. It is evident from the last but one para of the order of the appellate Court that the petitioner was appointed as excise constable vide appointment order No. Est/1/337 dated 20-3-1961 by the Excise Commissioner. On that date, the Collector had no power to appoint excise constable. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the delegation of powers made in the year 1965 could empower the Collector to make an order of dismissal in the case of the present petitioner who was appointed as excise constable by the Excise Commissioner. It is true that the Government can confer power to another appointing authority to dismiss a Government servant provided he is not subordinate in rank to the officer who appointed the delinquent. Initial appointment made by the District Excise Officer has become irrelevant. For judging the competency of the authority making the order of dismissal in the context of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the post from which the delinquent is sought to be removed remains relevant. 3. In this respect, the respondents rely on the delegation of powers in favour of Collector. It is neither the case of the respondents that the Collector is of the same or superior rank to that of the Excise Commissioner nor anything could be shown to us to infer accordingly despite time having been taken by Shri Sood, the learned Government Advocate. Under these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the Collector is inferior in rank to the Excise Commissioner prevails. 1976 JLJ 891 (FB) distinguished. Petition allowed.