JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The order of the Chairman, Paradeep Port Trust, dismissing the Petitioner from service in exercise of his power under Regulation 26(1) of Paradeep Port Employees. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") is under challenge in this writ application. The said order of the Chairman has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. The only ground of challenge is that the Chairman has no power to review in view of the second Proviso to Regulation 26(1) of the Regulations: 2. The Petitioner's case, briefly stated, is, that while he was working as an Operator, Grade-III, in Cargo Handling Division, a regular disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and two charges had been leveled. 'Those two, charges are: (i) taking away five litres of diesel through an outsider from a dumper and, (ii) committed negligence of duty on 22-8-1981 as he drove the dumper and did not stop it in spite of the instruction of the security guard. The Executive Engineer, Spare Parts Organisation was appointed as the Enquiring Officer and in the enquiry the Petitioner denied the charges levelled against him. The said Enquiring Officer submitted the report that the charges had not been proved. The report has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The disciplinary authority (opposite party No. 2) accepted the findings and report of the Enquiring Officer and warned the Petitioner to be carefully future by his order dated 15-12-1981, which has been annexed as Annexure-2. Subsequently, the said disciplinary authority modified his earlier order as per order dated 19-12-1981 (Annexure-3) and directed that the warning should be recorded in the C.C. Roll and Service Book of the Petitioner. Thereafter the Chairman (opposite party No. 1) by his order dated 10-2-1082, annexed as Annexure-4, issued a memorandum to the Petitioner to sow cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The Petitioner filed his show cause and on consideration of the same, the Chairman passed the impugned order on 25-3-1982 dismissing the Petitioner from service and ultimately the Petitioner was relieved on 27-3-1982 as per Annexure-5. The Impugned order of dismissal passed by the Chairman under Annexure-5 clearly stipulates that the said Chairman has passed the order in exercise of power vested in him by Regulation 26 of the Regulations. The Impugned order of dismissal passed by the Chairman under Annexure-5 clearly stipulates that the said Chairman has passed the order in exercise of power vested in him by Regulation 26 of the Regulations. The Chairman disagreed with the findings of the disciplinary authority and having held the Petitioner guilty of the charges leveled against him and not being satisfied by the show-cause submitted by the Petitioner inflicted the punishment of dismissal 3. The short question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Chairman has the power to review the order passed by opposite party No. 2 and the said, question depends upon an interpretation of Regulation 26. Regulation 26 is extracted hereunder in extenso: 26. The short question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Chairman has the power to review the order passed by opposite party No. 2 and the said, question depends upon an interpretation of Regulation 26. Regulation 26 is extracted hereunder in extenso: 26. Review: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in those regulations (i) the Central Government, or (ii) the Board, or (iii) the Chairman, or (iv) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the orders proposed to be reviewed, or (v) any other authority, specified in this behalf by the Board by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order, may at any time either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and review any order made under these regulations or under the regulations repealed by regulation 29 from which no appeal is allowed but no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the Central Government where such consultation is necessary, and may: (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit; Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the employee concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making are presentation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of regulations or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses; no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid dawn in regulation 10 and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the employee concerned of showing cause against the penalty proposed on the evidence adduced during the inquiry and except after consultation with the Central. Government where such consultation is necessary; Provided further that no power of review shall be exercised by the Chairman, or any other authority specified in Clause (iv) of sub-regulation (l) as the case may be, unless: (i) the authority which made the order in appeal; or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred is subordinate to him. (2) No proceeding for review shall be commenced until after: (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal; or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. (3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these regulation. According to Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the, second Proviso to Regulation 26(1) limits the power of the Chairman as well as the appellate authority mentioned in Clause (iv) of Regulation 26(1) so far as their power of review is concerned to the extent that both those authorities can exercise the said power only when the authority which made the Order in appeal or the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to the reviewing authority. In accordance with the Schedule, in respect of Class-III employees, the appellate authority being the Chairman himself, the Chairman cannot review the order in question and the second Proviso to Regulation, 26(1) is squarely attracted. I find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. Under Regulation 26, five categories of authorities have been described in five different clauses who can exercise the power of review. Whereas there is no limitation in respect of the power of the Central Government or the Board contained in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-regulation (1), but so far as the Chairman enumerated in regulation 26(1)(iii) and the appellate authority enumerated in regulation 26(1)(iv) are concerned, the second Proviso restricts their power. In accordance with the second Proviso, no power of review could be exercised by the Chairman or the authorities specified in Clause (iv) of Sub-regulation (1) unless the authority which made the order in appeal or the authority to which an appeal would lie, where an appeal has not been preferred, is subordinate to the Chairman. In accordance with the second Proviso, no power of review could be exercised by the Chairman or the authorities specified in Clause (iv) of Sub-regulation (1) unless the authority which made the order in appeal or the authority to which an appeal would lie, where an appeal has not been preferred, is subordinate to the Chairman. In other words, in a given case, unless the appellate authority, where an appellate order has been passed or the appellate authority to whom an appeal would lie and no appeal has been preferred is subordinate to the Chairman or the authority described in Regulation 26(1)(iv), the said Chairman or the said authority cannot exercise the power of review. This being the position of law and in the present case in respect of the Petitioner who is a Class-III employee, the appointing authority being the head of a department and the appellate authority being the Chairman himself, the said Chairman cannot exercise the power of review contained in. Regulation 26(1) of the Regulations. Consequently, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is without jurisdiction and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 5. In the net result, therefore, Annexures-5 and 6 are hereby quashed and the Petitioner must be deemed to be continuing in service with effect from the date of his relief pursuant to the order of dismissal passed by the Chairman and would be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the financial benefits that would accrue to him on the aforesaid basis. The financial benefits may be given to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of our order. The writ application is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances there would be no order as to costs. Requisites for issue of writ may be filed within a week from today failing which the order in this writ application will not be given effect to. K.C. Jagadeb Ray, J. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed