ORDER S.K. Chawla, J. 1. This order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Petition No. 328/83, Makarand Singh v. The Board of Revenue and Ors. and Misc. Petition No. 422/86, Kanta Prasad (deceased) through L. Rs. Bharat Bhushan and Ors. v. State of M. P. and Ors.. 2. In all these cases, orders of removal or dismissal of patwaris were passed preceded by departmental enquiries held against them. The matters ultimately reached Board of Revenue either in second appeal or revisions at the instance of the patwaris. In all the cases, the Board of Revenue held that second appeal or revision filed before it were not maintainable, since orders of removal and dismissal had been passed under M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the 'Classification Control Rules'), which could not be interfered by the Board of Revenue, being not orders passed under the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the 'Code'). All these petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India have been filed to quash the said orders of the Board of Revenue. 3. The power to appoint a patwari is conferred on the Collector under Section 104(2) of the Code. That power has been delegated by State Government notifications to S.D.O. as also to Record-of-rights Officer. By virtue of Section 16 of the M. P. General Clauses Act, the power to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss. Hence where a patwari is removed or dismissed, the source of power is the same, namely, Section 104(2) of the Code. Such an order is therefore, an order under the Code. See Ramkishan Gaurishankar v. State of M. P. and Ors., in 1977 MPLJ 183. 4. It would not make any difference if such an order was preceded by a departmental enquiry held against the patwari. It has been reasoned by the Board in the impugned orders that such orders were passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules. Leaving aside orders passed with respect to other officers or servants, confining ourselves to order of removal or dismissal of a patwari, albeit passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules it is not anytheless and order under Section 104(2) of the Code. An illustration will make this point clear. Leaving aside orders passed with respect to other officers or servants, confining ourselves to order of removal or dismissal of a patwari, albeit passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules it is not anytheless and order under Section 104(2) of the Code. An illustration will make this point clear. An order dismissing an Agriculture Assistant of Agriculture Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh is passed after holding a departmental enquiry against him under the provisions of Classification Control Rules. Such an order is only an order passed under the Classification Control Rules and cannot be said to be an order passed under the Code. That cannot be said with respect to an order removing or dismissing a patwari after a departmental enquiry held against him under the provisions of Classification Control Rules. That order may be an order under the Classification Control Rules, but it is also an order under Section 104(2) of the Code. That being so, it is liable to interference in appeal or revision under the scheme of the Code. In Shrigopal v. State of M. P. and Ors., 1979 RN 312, an order compulsorily retiring a patwari by way of punishment, was held to be subject to second appeal by the Commissioner. The Commissioner in that case had held that the order had been passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules, and therefore, second appeal before him was not maintainable. It was held by this Court that the" Commissioner was wrong and that the order in question being passed under the provisions of the Code, second appeal was maintainable before the Commissioner under Section 44(2) of the Code. It would not, therefore, matter in the present cases even if the orders removing or dismissing patwaris were passed as a sequel to departmental enquiries held against them. Such orders would not cease to be orders passed under the Code. As such they would be open to interference in appeal or revision under the Code. 5. In one of the impugned orders, it has been reasoned by learned Member of the Board that order under the Arms Act is not open to interference before the Board of Revenue acting under the Code. That being so, it was further reasoned that an order passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules would also not be open to interference before the Board acting under the Code. That being so, it was further reasoned that an order passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules would also not be open to interference before the Board acting under the Code. The fallacy lay in ignoring the fact that some orders passed under the Classification Control Rules may also be orders passed under the Code. Order removing or dismissing a patwari after a departmental enquiry held against him, even though may be an order passed under the provisions of Classification Control Rules, is nevertheless an order passed under Section 104(2) of the Code. It is, therefore, subject to interference in appeal or revision under the Code. An order under the Arms Act being not an order under the Code, it would not be subject to interference in appeal or revision under the Code. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General Shri H. D. Gupta in trying to support the impugned orders of the Board of Revenue, contended that appeal from an order removing or dismissing a patwari was excluded under clause (e) of Section 46 of the Code. That provision reads as under :- "Section 46. - No appeal against certain orders. No appeal shall lie under this Code from an order - (a)............. (b)............. (c)............. (d)............. (e) relating to appointment under sub-section (2) of Section 104 or sub-section (1) of Section 106." It will be seen that clause (e) excludes right of appeal in the case of an order "relating to appointment" under Section 104(2). The power to appoint no doubt includes power to remove or dismiss by virtue of Section 16 of the M. P. General Clauses Act. That would not make the order removing or dismissing a patwari as an order "relating to appointment" within the meaning of clause (e). A right of appeal cannot be taken away by assumption or by analogy. Hence the order removing or dismissing a patwari does not fall within the bar contained in Section 46(e) of the Code. It is open to appeal. This is expressly laid down in the case of Ramkishan (supra). The contention raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General is, therefore, without force and is rejected. 7. The impugned orders of the Board of Revenue holding that second appeal and revisions in question were not maintainable before it, are wrong. All the petitions are allowed. This is expressly laid down in the case of Ramkishan (supra). The contention raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General is, therefore, without force and is rejected. 7. The impugned orders of the Board of Revenue holding that second appeal and revisions in question were not maintainable before it, are wrong. All the petitions are allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue dated 12-10-1982 in Appeal No. 7-IV/80; dated 12-5-1983 in Revision No. 106/V/81; and dated 6-14986 in Revision No. 65/V/85 are set aside. The Board of Revenue shall hear and dispose of the second appeal and revisions on merits. These matters have become very old and we expect that the Board shall dispose of these proceedings expeditipusly. The petitioners shall without any notice, appear in their proceedings before the Board on 22nd of February, 1994 to take further orders from the Board. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Outstanding amount of security, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners.