JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Meerut Region, Meerut, against the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal No. 3, Lucknow, upon a claim petition No. 198(F)III/78 filed by Hansraj Singh, respondent 2, against the order, dated 11 February 1975, dismissing him from service passed by the Director of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh. The Tribunal has by the impugned order allowed the claim petition and set aside the impugned order but left it open to the department to institute fresh proceedings on the charge-sheet issued to the claimant by the Deputy Director of Agriculture in accordance with the rules laid down in the C C.A. Rules. 2. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition on the ground that the enquiry proceedings initiated against respondent 2 - Hansraj Singh, who was holding a post in the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Agriculture Service, Group II, were vitiated being contrary to the aforesaid rules from the stage of the serving of a charge-sheet by the Deputy Director of Agriculture upon him onwards. 3. The undisputed facts are that respondent 2 was placed under suspension by an order of Deputy Director of Agriculture. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was served on respondent 2, by the same officer. Thereafter, the Director of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh, appointed the Deputy Director of Agriculture to enquire into the charge framed by the Deputy Director of Agriculture. The Deputy Director of Agriculture enquired into the charges and submitted a report to the Director of Agriculture who issued a second show-cause notice which was then mandatory under Article 311 of the Constitution as it stood at the relevant time. Respondent 2 submitted his answer to the show-cause notice after which the Director of Agriculture passed the impugned order dismissing respondent 2 from service. Aggrieved by this order, respondent 2 filed the aforesaid claim petition. 4. The Tribunal has set aside the order of dismissal passed against respondent 2 on the ground that the department was not clear as to who was competent to initiate the impugned disciplinary action against respondent 2. Aggrieved by this order, respondent 2 filed the aforesaid claim petition. 4. The Tribunal has set aside the order of dismissal passed against respondent 2 on the ground that the department was not clear as to who was competent to initiate the impugned disciplinary action against respondent 2. Thus, whereas the charge-sheet was served on respondent 2 by the Deputy Director who was admittedly both the appointing authority as well as punishing authority in the case of respondent 2, it was the Director of Agriculture who appointed the Deputy Director as the enquiry officer. The enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director who submitted his report to the Director. The second show-cause notice, as already mentioned, was issued by the Director. The Tribunal has rightly observed that as an officer superior in rank to the appointing/punishing authority, the Director could both issue the second show-cause notice under Article 311 of the Constitution as well as pass the ultimate order of punishment. But the rules of service were clearly violated in that the disciplinary proceedings had to be carried out by the punishing authority, i.e., the Deputy Director by appointing appropriate enquiry officer and taking other steps mentioned in the aforesaid rules 55 A and 56. Those rules were clearly violated in the present case. As mentioned above, the enquiry officer was appointed by the Director and not by the Deputy Director. The Tribunal was, therefore, not wrong in quashing the ultimate order on the ground that the enquiry on the basis of which the said order was passed was itself vitiated. 5. The learned standing counsel, however, submitted that respondent 2 had raised no objection to the validity of the enquiry and consequently the objection pointed out by the Tribunal was not available to him, I am unable to agree. The defect pointed out by the Tribunal was not a mere irregularity but one which went to the root of the matter. It concerned the competence of the officer appointing the enquiry officer. If the very appointment of the enquiry officer was invalid in law, the subsequent proceedings also stood vitiated. It is needless to add that the petitioners would be free to conduct a de novo enquiry from the stage of the serving of the charge-sheet by the Deputy Director of Agriculture in accordance with law as already directed by the Tribunal. 6. It is needless to add that the petitioners would be free to conduct a de novo enquiry from the stage of the serving of the charge-sheet by the Deputy Director of Agriculture in accordance with law as already directed by the Tribunal. 6. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. But I make no order as to costs.