O. N. Vohra ( 1 ) THAT a bare perusal of the proviso I to Section 95 shows that the requisite permission under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, could be given by the authority who was competent to reduce the respondent in rank, or to compulsorily retire remove or dismiss him from service but such an authority shall not be subordinate in rank to the authority who appointed him. It is a mandatory statutory restriction. It is trite saying that the provisions which prescribe the circumstances under which the employer is entitled to terminate the services of an employee are conditions of service. ( 2 ) FURTHER that the mere fact that an authority lower in rank to the authority who appointed the respondent was also competent to order the appointment of the respondent is of no consequence. ( 3 ) FURTHER that the Respondent employee who was holding permanently the Post of a Lower Division Clerk on which he had lien and according to proviso I to Section 95 (1) he could not be reduced in rank, compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appoined. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that Commissioner is an Officer subordinate to the Corporation. He, therefore, was not competent to accord sanction for prosecution of the respondent. ( 4 ) FURTHER that the subordination that is contemplated in proviso (1) to Section 95 (1) of the Act is a subordination in rank and not of functions. ( 5 ) FURTHER that the principle deducible from the various authorities quoted at bar is that an employee shall not be dismissed or reduced in rank by an authority subodinate to the one that appointed him. Further, if the employment of an employee had been made by an Officer of a higher rank, the power of removal cannot be delegated to an authority subordinate to him, the Subordination is of rank and not of functions. It is, therefore, evident that the subordination of the appointing and dismissing authority has to be determined with reference to their ranks. It is the factum of the appointment of the civil servant, who claims the guarantee, that determines the scope of the guarantee conferred by Article 311 (1) of the Constitution or the statutory rule applicable to the employee. It is, therefore, evident that the subordination of the appointing and dismissing authority has to be determined with reference to their ranks. It is the factum of the appointment of the civil servant, who claims the guarantee, that determines the scope of the guarantee conferred by Article 311 (1) of the Constitution or the statutory rule applicable to the employee. The statutory rules may vary the appointing authority from time to time but such variations would not affect the right conferred upon a civil servant under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution or under the statutory rule applicable to the civil servant. The same rule would apply where the power to appoint is validly exercised by an authority higlur than the one designated by the rules as appointing authority. ( 6 ) FURTHER that the Parliament in enacting Section 516 was fully conscious of the proviso to Section 511 (1 ). The proviso has to be given some meaning and cannot be said to be surplage. In interpreting the two Sections viz. 516 (2) (a) and proviso to 511 (1), harmonious construction has to be placed on them so as to give meaning to both. So interpreted, it cannot be said that a change was brought about in the terms and conditions of service of the respondent on being absorbed in the service of the Corporation by any legislative intendment. All that Section 516 (2) (a) says is that any appointment made under any of the Acts or enactments referred to in Sub-Section (1) of" the said section or under the Act referred to in clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 286 of the Act shall be deemed to have been made under the provisions of the Act. This section does not bring about a change in the rank of the authority that had appointed the respondent. This section does not bring about a change in the rank of the authority that had appointed the respondent. The respondent, as already noted earlier, was confirmed as Junior Grade Clerk by the Committee by resolution Exhibit PW2/b in pursuance of the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, which fakkis borne out from the testimony of Mehar Singh; PW1, in terms of the provisions of Section 516 (2) (a) his appointment shall s be deemed to have been made under the Act but that does not mean that the rank of the appointing authority could be ignored in determining the authority who could dismiss or terminate his services under the Act. The Commissioner of the Corporation without doubt is an officer subordinate to the Corporation. He, therefore, was not competent to accord the requisite sanction for the prosecution of the respondent in view of the statutory prohibition envisaged by the first proviso to Section 95 (1) of the Act. One of the conditions of respondent s service was that he could be removed by the Municipal Committee only which by no stretch of imagination can be equated with the Cammissioner of the Corporation. The dismissal of the respondent could be ordered by the Corporation alone.