JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that no person who is a member of the civil service of a State or holds a civil post under a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Rule 14(4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, provides that no penalty of removal shall be imposed by any authority lower than the appointing authority In flagrant violation of these mandatory provisions, the Petitioner, who had formerly been serving as a peon in the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Champua (opposite party No. 5) and had been proceeded against a disciplinary proceeding for unauthorised absence for a considerably long period commencing on and from April 20, 1974 without permission or even intimation, has been removed from service by the order of discharge (Annexure-5), which would amount to order of removal passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, having no jurisdiction to do so the Petitioner having been confirmed and substantively, appointed by a higher authority namely, the Additional District Magistrate & District Election Officer, Keonjhar as per Annexure-I. 2. The original order of appointment of the Petitioner has not been annexed by him and Mr. Das for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has not been able to trace it out. The State took time to produce the original order of appointment, but we have been told at the hearing that it is missing. It would, however, be clear from Annexure-I that the Petitioner had been confirmed as a class IV Government servant by the Additional District Magistrate & District Election Officer and this is not disputed by the opposite parties who have, in the counter affidavit, averred that the Petitioner had been confirmed with effect from January 24, 1955 by the Additional District Magistrate & District Election Officer, Keonjhar, under order No. 13(12) dated January 13, 1958. In the absence of any material placed before us by the opposite parties and in view of Annexure-I, it would be reasonable to take a view that the Petitioner had been appointed initially by the same authority. The fact remains that the Petitioner had been appointed substantively to his post by an authority higher in rank than the Subdivisional Officer. 3. The fact remains that the Petitioner had been appointed substantively to his post by an authority higher in rank than the Subdivisional Officer. 3. specific ground taken by the Petitioner in paragraph 23 of the writ application with regard to the invalidity of the impugned order of discharge by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority being in violation of Article 311(1) of the Constitution has not been met in the counter affidavit by the opposite parties and it has merely been stated therein that this statement needs no comment We are led to believe that the opposite parties have no material to controvert this legal contention raised by the Petitioner. 4. No doubt, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order of discharge had been heard and disposed of by the competent authority, namely, the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. But when the order of removal is passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, the unconstitutionality cannot be cured by the fact that the order of dismissal is confirmed on appeal by the proper authority. The removal by a subordinate authority in contravention of Article 311(1) is null and void and the appellate authority went legally wrong in upholding the order of discharge (Annexure-5). 5. For the reasons aforesaid, we would uphold the legal contention raised, on behalf of the Petitioner, allow the writ application and quash Annexures 5 and 8, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding R.C. Patnaik, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed