JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of resolution No. 11 dated 30-8-1972 abolishing the post of Mechanical Supervisor and the order of the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Allahabad dated 30-8-1972 terminating the petitioner's services with immediate effect. 2. The Cantonment Board, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board) created a temporary post of Mechanical Supervisor as an emergency measure and appointed the petitioner on that post in January 1965. On the request of the Board, the General Officer Commanding-in-chief, Central Command granted sanction for the creation of a permanent post of Mechanical Supervisor with effect from March 1967. The petitioner was allowed to hold that post in the scale of Rs. 150-250. The petitioner's main duty was to supervise the working and maintenance of the vehicles of the Board in the Workshop maintained by it. On 23rd November, 1971 the Executive Officer issued an order directing the petitioner to vacate the official quarters occupied by him. The petitioner did not vacate the quarter. The Executive Officer thereupon served a show cause notice on the petitioner on 15-1-1972 calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the charges mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted his reply and contested the charges. Thereafter, no enquiry was held as no Enquiry Officer was appointed and no witnesses were examined and the matter remained pending. On 2nd August, 1972, the petitioner was transferred from the Workshop to the office of the Board under the orders of the Executive Officer and he was again directed to vacate the official quarters which he had not vacated. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in this court (Writ No. 4493 of 1972) and obtained an interim order restraining the Executive Officer and the Board from ejecting the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute. The Executive Officer, however, informed the petitioner by his letter dated 22-1-1972 that the Board had decided to allow the petitioner to resume charge of his post of Mechanical Supervisor in the Workshop but with a warning that the petitioner should be more energetic, careful and resourceful in future while ensuring a better service to the Board's vehicles. 3. The facts stated above show that the Board was not happy with the petitioner's work and conduct. 3. The facts stated above show that the Board was not happy with the petitioner's work and conduct. On 30-8-1972, the Board after taking legal advice passed a resolution abolishing the post of Mechanical Supervisor with immediate effect. In pursuance of the Board's resolution, the Executive Officer vide his letter dated 30th August 1972 informed the petitioner that the petitioner's services were no longer required as the Board has abolished the post of Mechanical Supervisor with immediate effect and he was directed to hand over the charge immediately. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid resolution of the Board as well as the order of the Executive Officer terminating his services. 4. The petitioner appeared in person and argued his case. He made three submissions before us; (1) The impugned resolution of the Board dated August 30, 1972 abolishing the petitioner's post was passed without obtaining the prior approval of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief of the Central Command, as such, the petitioner's services have been terminated in contravention of Rule 5 of the Cantonment Fund Service Rules, 1937; (2) The impugned order of termination has been passed by way of punishment as the order is founded on allegations of misconduct; (3) The resolution and the termination order were passed mala fide at the instance of Sri L.S.A. Mendis, the then Executive Officer of the Board who bore personal malice against the petitioner. 5. The Board is constituted under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924. It exercises its powers and discharges its functions under the control of the Central Government and the-Officer Commanding-in-chief of the Command as laid down by the Act, and the rules framed thereunder. The Cantonment Funds Service Rules 1937 framed under the said Act contain provisions for the Funds Servants employed by the Board. Rule 5 of these rules is as under: "5. The sanction of the Board shall be obtained to all proposals for altering the number, designations and; grades of its servants and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them. The Cantonment Funds Service Rules 1937 framed under the said Act contain provisions for the Funds Servants employed by the Board. Rule 5 of these rules is as under: "5. The sanction of the Board shall be obtained to all proposals for altering the number, designations and; grades of its servants and the salaries, fees and allowances payable to them. Such proposals shall ordinarily be taken into consideration at the time of framing the budget but may, at the instance of the Executive Officer, be taken into-consideration at any time; Provided that no proposal adversely affecting any servant who has been in the permanent service of the Board for more than five years and is drawing a salary of not less than fifty rupees per mensem shall be considered except at a special meeting convened for the purpose; Provided also that the previous sanction of the Officer Commanding-in-chief' the Command, shall be obtained as required by Rules 45, 46 and 47 of the Cantonment Account Code, 1924, save in the case of the appointments of temporary servants under Rule 9." 6. Rules 45, 46 and 47 of the Cantonment Account Code, 1924 as mentioned under the proviso to the said Rule, are as under: "45. Proposals for revision of establishment. -- When any change, permanent or temporary is proposed in the number;, or pay, of appointments in the establishment of the Cantonment Board, a letter fully explaining the proposals and the conditions which have given rise to them shall, save in the case of the appointment of temporary servants, under Rule 9 of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 be submitted to the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command. In this letter should be set out - (i) the present cost, either of the 'section' or 'sections' affected, or of the total establishment, as the circumstances of the case may indicate to be necessary; (ii) the cost of the revision; (iii) details of the number and pay of the appointments which it is proposed to add or modify; (iv) the ability of the Cantonment Board to meet the additional expenditure from its normal income; and (v) the date or dates from which the proposed changes are to take effect. 46. Proposition statement - (1) In cases of general revision of establishment, or of proposals which cannot be set out clearly otherwise, a proposition statement in duplicate in form No. Cant. 46. Proposition statement - (1) In cases of general revision of establishment, or of proposals which cannot be set out clearly otherwise, a proposition statement in duplicate in form No. Cant. 14-B showing clearly the financial effect of proposed change shall also be submitted. (1) If the change would affect only a section or a portion of the establishment, the proposition statement shall ordinarily be confined to the section oi1 the portion of the establishment affected by the proposals. 47. Sanction for revision of establishment - On receipt of the proposals for permanent or temporary changes in the establishments the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, the Command, may sanction or refuse to sanction any such revision or may sanction it with such modifications as he may consider fit. The statement of revision shall then be returned to the Cantonment Board as early as possible with the sanction or modification, and shall be filed for reference at the time of audit." 7. The Board has power to alter the number of its servants but under the proviso to Rule 5 any change in the establishment or alteration in the number of servants can be made only after the previous sanction of the Officer Commander-in-Chief of the Central Command is obtained. Rule 45 of the Cantonment Account R. 1924 framed under the Act lays down that when any change, permanent or temporary, is proposed to be made on the establishment of a Cantonment Board, the proposal must be submitted to the Officer Commanding-in-chief of the Command, Rule 46 lays down the procedure for submitting the proposal of change in the establishment. Rule 47 lays down that the Officer Commanding-in-chief of the Command may sanction or refuse to sanction any revision or change in the establishment with such modifications as he may consider necessary. The abolition of post by a Cantonment Board amounts to making change in the number of servants and the financial position of the Board. A Cantonment Board is, therefore, under a legal duty to obtain previous sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command, for creation or abolition of a post as in either contingency, it is bound to effect change in the number of servants increasing or decreasing in the establishment of the Board. A Cantonment Board is, therefore, under a legal duty to obtain previous sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command, for creation or abolition of a post as in either contingency, it is bound to effect change in the number of servants increasing or decreasing in the establishment of the Board. When sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief was taken by the Board for creating a post, there seems to be no valid reason for not obtaining the approval of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief for abolition of a permanent post in the establishment of the Board which was bound to effect change in the establishment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that even for abolition of post, previous sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command was necessary and in the absence of any such previous sanction, the resolution of the Board abolishing the post is rendered illegal. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner's services were terminated in pursuance of the Board's resolution dated 30-8-1972. The petitioner has asserted that no previous sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief of the Central Command, Lucknow under-whose jurisdiction, Allahabad Board is situate was obtained. The respondents have not denied this allegation. During the course of hearing, we gave an opportunity to the learned Chief Standing Counsel of the Union Government-appearing for the respondents to ascertain from the respondent Board, if any, sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief, Lucknow had been obtained by the Board before the petitioner's post was abolished. Learned counsel, after making an enquiry stated before us that no sanction of the General Officer Commanding-in-chief of the-Central Command was obtained before the Board effected the impugned resolution on 30-8-1972. In the circumstances, the Board's resolution is rendered illegal and ineffective therefrom and the order of the Executive Officer terminating the petitioner's services is also rendered illegal and the petitioner is entitled to relief. 9. We do not consider it necessary to deal with the other submissions made by the petitioner as he is entitled to relief on the first question. 10. In the result, we allow the petition with costs and quash the order of the Cantonment Board dated 30-8-1972 as well as the order of the executive Officer terminating the petitioner's services as contained in his letter dated 30-3-1972. 10. In the result, we allow the petition with costs and quash the order of the Cantonment Board dated 30-8-1972 as well as the order of the executive Officer terminating the petitioner's services as contained in his letter dated 30-3-1972. The petitioner shall be treated in service during the period he was illegally kept out of his service on account of the impugned orders.