JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V, Lucknow, dated December 28, 1985. It appears that Anokhey Lal respondent No. 1 was appointed as a clerk by the General Manager of U. P. Government Roadways by order, dated April 22, 1968. He was taken on deputation on the formation of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from June 1, 1972. Departmental proceedings were held against him for disregarding orders and failure to discharge duties and wilful absence from duty. A charge-sheet was issued to him on October 23, 1978. He submitted his reply on November 3, 1978. After the inquiry was completed the respondent No. 1 was removed' from. service on December 27, 1979. He filed a claim petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 for quashing the order of removal, dated December 27, 1979. The claim was contested by the petitioner-Corporation. However, the claim petition was allowed and the order of removal, dated December 27, 1979 was set aside. The Tribunal directed that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to all the service benefits including pay and allowances as if the order of removal had never been passed and that such payment would be made within three months, failing which the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to get the same executed from a competent Court having civil jurisdiction in the course of law. 2. It was contended by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal that he was appointed by Assistant General Manager of the State Road transport Corporation. Sri H. K. Singh and Sri S. C. Devedi who had delivered the charge-sheet and had passed the order of removal respectively, were appointed by the Corporation and were not employees of the U. P. Government Roadways. It was, therefore, submitted that they were not competent to pass the impugned order of removal. The contention of the parties in this behalf was disposed of by the Tribunal in the following terms :, "under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Sri H. K. Singh who issued the charge-sheet and1 Mr. It was, therefore, submitted that they were not competent to pass the impugned order of removal. The contention of the parties in this behalf was disposed of by the Tribunal in the following terms :, "under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that Sri H. K. Singh who issued the charge-sheet and1 Mr. S. C. Devedi who passed the final orders of punishment were appointees of the Corporation and, as such, were not entitled to function as appointing / punishing authorities in respect of the petitioner who was appointed by the General manager of the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways. Petitioner continued to be on deputation in the U. P. State Road Transport corporation and only those officers who were also on deputation in u. P. State Road Transport Corporation were competent to impose the punishment on the petitioner. However, such officers should not be below the rank of Regional Manager as the post of General manager of the U. P. Government Roadways was re-designated as regional Manager to U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. Sri h. K. Singh and Sri S. C. Divedi being appointees of U. P. State Road transport Corporation had got no jurisdiction to pass the orders of punishment against the petitioner. " It was also contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 before the tribunal that earned leave/leave without pay and medical leave had been sanctioned for the period from June 1, 1978 to July 23, 1978 by competent authority. The Bank Draft was also issued by the same was not disbursed to him. The Tribunal held that once the leave was sanctioned there was no question of proceeding against the petitioner for an un-authorised absence. The departmental proceedings were vitiated on that ground also. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent no. 1. The Bank Draft was also issued by the same was not disbursed to him. The Tribunal held that once the leave was sanctioned there was no question of proceeding against the petitioner for an un-authorised absence. The departmental proceedings were vitiated on that ground also. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Respondent no. 1. The view taken by the Tribunal that an officer of the Government who was on deputation with the petitioner-Corporation was alone competent to pass the order of removal against respondent No. 1 is fortified by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Krishna Pathak v. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (1), in which it has been held that an officer of Transport Corporation appointed by the Corporation after its creation cannot dismiss or remove from service any of those Government employees, who had been sent on deputation to serve in the Corporation, for a Government servant continues to enjoy the status of a Government servant even when he is sent on deputation. Again even suspension, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank can be taken only in accordance with the law and rules and regulations relating thereto as also the pro-, visions of the Constitution. The removing authority should be of the same rank or grade of which the appointing authority was. The view taken by the Tribunal is supported by the Full Bench case. It has not been shown that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that both Sri H. K. Singh and Sri S. C. Divedi were officers of the Corporation and the latter did not hold the rank equivalent to that of the appointing authority of respondent No. 1, are vitiated in any manner. Therefore, it appears that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law in coming to the conclusion that the impugned order of removal which was passed against the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction. It was contended on behalf of -the petitioner that the charge-sheet was delivered to the respondent No. 1 by a competent authority and, therefore, it should be left open even after upholding the impugned order of Tribunal that the inquiry into the charges may be held by a competent authority. It was contended on behalf of -the petitioner that the charge-sheet was delivered to the respondent No. 1 by a competent authority and, therefore, it should be left open even after upholding the impugned order of Tribunal that the inquiry into the charges may be held by a competent authority. The Tribunal has given a clear finding that the charge of unauthorised absence from duty has not been, substantiated in view of the fact that earned leave/leave without pay and medical leave had been sanctioned to the respondent No. 1 for the relevant period. As this finding is not shown to be erroneous there seems to be no justification for -leaving the aforesaid question opened as contended on behalf of the petitioner-Corporation. In my view the writ petition is without any force and is liable or to be dismissed. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to Costs. The interim order of stay, if any, is hereby reacted. Petition Dismissed.