JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order dated 31-10-1980 passed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow rejecting the claim petition of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 7 12-1964 on one year's probation by the officer-in-charge, Nagar Palika, Sirsaganj, district Mainpuri as Tax Collector. He jointed on 2-12-1964. One year's period of probation was not extended by any specific order. But he was allowed to continue. Admittedly no order of confirmation was passed. The service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 14-10-1966 passed by the Executive Officer, which was to came into force with effect from 15-10-1966. Against this order the petitioner filed a representation/appeal to the U. P. Government on 5-1-1967. In-spite of several reminders no orders were passed till 24-11-1978. On that date an order was passed that the petitioner may approach U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in case if he so desires. Soon thereafter the petitioner filed claim petition No. 1447/11 of 1S78 before U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. The same was rejected on 31-10-1980 on the ground of limitation. On the principle of estoppel also the finding was recorded against the petitioner. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of termination was passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. The order was bad in view of Article 3 i 1(1) of the Constitution of India. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that Annexure-2 to the writ petition was only a communication made by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Sirsaganj, District Mainpuri and actually the order of termination was passed by the competent Authority. 5. Since the Nagar Palika is asserting that the order dated 14-10-1966 which has been filed by the petitioner is not the order of termination but is only a communication, it was incumbent upon it to file the document which is being said to be the termination order. Neither before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal nor before this Court any document has been filed to that effect. In the absence of any other material on record, it cannot be said that the order dated, 14-10-1966 is not the order of termination. Admittedly this order was passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Sirsaganj and not by the Officer-in-Charge. In the absence of any other material on record, it cannot be said that the order dated, 14-10-1966 is not the order of termination. Admittedly this order was passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Sirsaganj and not by the Officer-in-Charge. The Tribunal without looking into the record has recorded an illegal finding that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority. This finding is based on no evidence. It is accordingly set aside. The impugned cider was passed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. It is in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India The order is illegal. 6. Now coming to the second question of limitation, is clear that after the impugned order was passed in 1966 the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy before the statutory authorities by way of representation/appeal which has been decided in the month of November, 1978. The claim petition was filed within two months thereafter. The Tribunal was not justified in recording a finding that the claim petition was barred by time. The finding on the point of limitation is also set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31-10-1980 passed by the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow is set aside and the order of termination dated 14-10-1966 is quashed. Costs on parties.