JUDGMENT I.S. Mathur, J. - Notices on behalf of the opposite parties have been accepted by Sri P.N. Mathur, learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter may be finally disposed of. 3. The facts, so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are not disputed. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-111 (Depot) and was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-Ill (Depot) vide, order dated 18-9-1980. The impugned order, is the order of dismissal dated 7-3-1988 (Annexure-1 to the petition). The order has been passed by Senior Regional Manager, who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner, in view of the fact that the order of his promotion was passed by the Zonal Manager. 4. The sole ground on which the order of dismissal has been challenged and the only ground pressed before this Court is that the order has not been passed by the appointing authority, who in the present case, is Zonal Manager. This is obvious from the F.C.I. Staff Regulations 1971, as amended by the notification dated 16-10-1987 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) It is also not disputed that the Senior Regional Manager, who passed this impugned order, was not the appointing authority and he had no jurisdiction to pass this order. The order is accordingly patently illegal. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that after the passing of the initial order of dismissal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who happened to be Zonal Manager at the time and he rejected the appeal, but the Managing Director referred back this appeal to the Zonal Manager for a fresh decision It is contended by the learned counsel that, since the Zonal Manger had already taken a decision and has made up his mind in this matter it will be just and proper to direct that this decision shall be taken by the Managing Director. It is difficult to accept this submission. Since the appointing authority of the petitioner is admittedly Zonal Manager and according to the regulations noted above, it was the appointing authority alone who could pass the order of dismissal, so the Managing Director cannot be asked to pass an order in this regard. 6. It is difficult to accept this submission. Since the appointing authority of the petitioner is admittedly Zonal Manager and according to the regulations noted above, it was the appointing authority alone who could pass the order of dismissal, so the Managing Director cannot be asked to pass an order in this regard. 6. A matter of similar nature has been considered by this Court in Dhanpat Singh v. Food Corporation of India, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1258. The facts were similar and the matter related to an employee who was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II (Depot) by Zonal Manager but the order of dismissal was passed by the Senior Regional Manager. It was held by this Court that the Senior Regional Manager had no jurisdiction to pass an order of dismissal The order was accordingly set aside. The same view has been taken this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi v. Food Corporation of India, W.P. No. 1282 (S/S) 1992, decided on 26-2-1992. 7. In view of these decisions and the position of law, noted above, there is no sufficient reason for taking any different view or for issuing any directions different from those which were issued in the earlier cases. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order of dismissal dated March 7, 1988 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), as also the appellate order dated 24/28-7-1988 (Annexure-2 to the petition) are quashed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the competent authority to consider the matter afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of this order. 9. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.