M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a pepn in the service of the Agricultural Produce market Committee, Chintamani, has presented this writ petition praying for quashing the order by which he has been dismissed from service. ( 2 ) THE contention urged for the petitioner is that without holding any enquiry, the market committee had dismissed him from service obeying a direction issued by the Chief Marketing officer. ( 3 ) ON 3. 1. 79, a notice was issued to the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry report made under S. 128 of the kamataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (here in after referred to as the Act) in which the petitioner was called upon to explain why an amount of Rs. 1380 said to have been misappropriated by him should not be recovered from him besides taking other disciplinary action. The petitioner gave a reply dated 18. 1. 79 (Annexure-B ). In the said reply, he pointed out that the opinion of the Joint Chief Marketing officer in the enquiry held under Sec. 128 of the Act was erroneous and therefore the marketing Committee should reject the opinion and also should withdraw the show cause notice issued to him. Thereafter, a notice dated 28. 2. 79 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the Chief Marketing Officer on 5. 3. 79 (Annexure-C ). The petitioner did not appear before the Chief Marketing Officer and thereafter another notice was issued to him on 9th March 1979 (Annexure-D) calling upon him to appear on 26. 3. 79. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 20. 2. 80 was issued by the Market Committee to the petitioner calling him upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service (Annexure-F ). ( 4 ) TO the show cause notice, the petitioner furnished his reply (Annexure-G ). He submitted that the charges levelled against him were baseless and that he had been working on the establishment of the marketing committee since 1967 without any blemish. He requested the Marketing committee to exonerate him from the changes levelled against him. Thereafter by the letter dated 30. 5. 80, the chief Marketing Officer called upon the marketing committee to dismiss the petitioner from service. Again by another letter dated 7. 1. He requested the Marketing committee to exonerate him from the changes levelled against him. Thereafter by the letter dated 30. 5. 80, the chief Marketing Officer called upon the marketing committee to dismiss the petitioner from service. Again by another letter dated 7. 1. 81 addressed by the Chief Marketing Officer, the marketing committee was directed to dismiss the petitioner from service. Thereafter, as per order dated 23. 1. 81 (Annexure-K), the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 5 ) AS stated earlier, the only contention of the petitioner is that no enquiry was held by the market committee before imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. In my view, the contention urged is well founded. Under S. 61 of the Act, the market committee is the competent authority to make appointment of the members of its staff except for the posts specified in S. 58. The provisions of the Act do not confer any power on the Chief marketing officer either to hold any disciplinary enquiry or to impose any penalty in respect of the members of the staff of the market committee. Therefore, the direction issued by the chief Marketing Officer was without the authority of law and consequently, the obedience to that direction by the market committee cannot be sustained. The respondents appear to have thought that any penalty could be imposed straightaway on the receipt of the report of enquiry made under s. 128 of the Act. S. 128 empowers the Chief Marketing Officer to enquire or cause an enquiry into official irregularities of the types specified in the section committed by the members or employees of the market committee. The Chief Marketing Officer is also given power to make an order, after hearing the party concerned, directing him to reimburse the loss caused to the market Committee and a right of appeal is also provided to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. The provisions of the said section however do not deal with the question of imposing the penalty on the employees of the market committee. The provisions of the said section however do not deal with the question of imposing the penalty on the employees of the market committee. Therefore, after the enquiry report was available, the market committee could have taken disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of the materials disclosed in the report by framing specific charges and could, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the charge, proceed to impose the penalty. In the present case though a show cause notice was issued on 20-2-1980 (Annexure-F) on the basis of the report and a reply (Annexure-G) has been received, the marke't committee did not consider the reply and pass orders after applying its mind. But the market committee proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from its service just because the Chief ' Marketing Officer directed it do so. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly, I make the following orders: (I) Rule made absolute; (ii) The impugned order of dismissal dated 23. 1. 81 (Annexure-K) is quashed; and (iii) The market committee is at liberty to take any appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. --- *** --- .