JUDGMENT B.K. Singh, J. - Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by Sri P.N. Mathur, the learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. They agreed that since the point involved is short, the petition itself may be disposed of at this state. 3. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 17-12-1991 contained in Annexure-15 and order dated 26.7-1991 contained in Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition. They are respectively orders of reversion to lower Grade of Assistant Grade III (Depot) for three years and of suspension. 4. One of the grounds, raised in tho petition is that the officer, who has passed the impugned order of reversion and suspension, was not competent authority of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law and are liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-Ill (Depot) in April, 1976 at Hissar in Haryana and was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II (Depot) by order dated 7-11-1985. The promotion order is contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The order was passed by the Zonal Manager, who is the appointing authority as provided by Regulation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 5. It is contended that the impugned orders have been passed by the opposite party No. 3 the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India. He is lower in rank than the Zonal Manager, the appointing authority of the petitioner. The provisions of Regulation 56 require that penalty of reversion and removal etc. cannot be imposed on any employee by an authority lower than the appointing authority. Therefore, the arguments that the petitioner has been reverted by an authority lower than the appointing authority is prima facie correct. The impugned orders of revision and suspension are, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 6. It is relevant to state at this stage that in earlier Writ Petition No 9043 (S/B) of 1989, No. 7240 (S/S) of 1991 and No. 665 (S/S) of 1992, this Court has no similar reasoning quashed the orders and there is nothing to deviate from the said view taken by this Court. 7. 6. It is relevant to state at this stage that in earlier Writ Petition No 9043 (S/B) of 1989, No. 7240 (S/S) of 1991 and No. 665 (S/S) of 1992, this Court has no similar reasoning quashed the orders and there is nothing to deviate from the said view taken by this Court. 7. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17-12-1991, contained in Annexure No. 15 and order dated 26-7-1991, contained in Annexure No. 14 to the Writ petition, are hereby quashed. It is, as a consequence, provided that the petitioner shall be put back to the duty and shall also be paid salary every month. It may, however, be observed that it will be open to the competent authority to consider the matter and pass suitable order if desired necessary, in accordance with law. The writ petition is thus allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.