Judgment S. K. Homchaudhuri, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the resolutiom in item No.11813 of the Board of Director of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter mentioned as the corporation resolving to award the punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner as well as the order dated 28.6.1994 dismissing the petitioner from service in pursuance to the decision of the Board of Director of the corporation. The petitioner has assailed the impugned resolution and the order mainly on the following grounds : (1) The conducting Officer, Dr. P. N. Vidyarthi, who was holding the post of officer on special duty in the Corporation being junior in rank and status of the petitioner was not competent to hold domestic inquiry in the charges against the petitioner and as such, the enquiry proceeding was vitiated and the inpugned orders passed on the basis thereof are illegal and void. (ii) No witness was examined in the domestic enquiry proceeding and the finding of the conducting officer is based on the files and records which were neither produced in the enquiry proceedings nor shown to the ptitioner and that the finding arrived at by the conducting officer is arbitrary and perverse and no reasonable man could arrive at the finding from the materials on records that the charge against the petitioner was established on the basis of the materials placed before him. As such, the resolution and the impugned order passed on the basis of arbitrary and perverse finding are illegal and void. (iii) The allegations contained in the charge-sheet are incorrect and unfounded and the proceeding is started on stale allegation inasmuch as the omission and commission alleged to have been committed in the year 1982-83 whereas the departmental proceeding was initiated in the year 1993 after ten years. (iv) The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority without application of mind inasmuch as it is apparent from the records that the proceeding was initiated as per dictation of the Government. 2. It is not disputed that in case the rank and status of Dr. (iv) The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority without application of mind inasmuch as it is apparent from the records that the proceeding was initiated as per dictation of the Government. 2. It is not disputed that in case the rank and status of Dr. P. N. Vidyarthi, the Officer on special duty, was below the rank of assistant General Manager, the post held by the petitioner, fie was not competent to hold domestic enquiry and consequently the enquiry proceeding and the finding given by the conducting officer would be illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of the centention that the post of officer on special duty held by Dr. Vidyarthi under the corporation was below in the rank and status to the post held by the petitioner, namely, Assistant General Manager. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly while pay scale of Assistant general Manager of the Corporation at the material relevant time was Rs.450q-5700/-, dr Vidyarthi was appointed as officer on special duty in the pay scale i. e.3700-5000/- which is equal to the pay scale of manager which ranked below the post of assistant General Manager. 3. Mr. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, submits that Dr. Vidyarthi while working as a member of Bihar Civil Service in senior grade and was drawing his pay in the pay scale of Rs.3700-5000/-, he was appointed as officer on special duty on deputation in the Corporation. As such, his pay scale cannot be relevant tor determining the rank and status of the post of the officer on special duty in corporation held by Dr. Vidyarthi. In course of hearing, on behalf of the corporation an affidavit has been filed in support of the contention that the status of the officer on special duty is higher then that of the Assistant General Manager. In the said affidavit a part of the memorandum dated 30th September, 1979 submitted by the then Managing Director before the board has been annexed which discloses that the post of O. S. D. in the Corporation carried pay scale higher than that of Joint secretary. It is further contended that the post of Joint Secretary was subsequently designated as Assistant General Manager. It is further contended that the post of Joint Secretary was subsequently designated as Assistant General Manager. Drawing my attention to the order dated 2,3.1993 by which the officer on special duty was given charge of (i) legal, (ii) personnel administration, (iii)lnternal audit, and (iv) Vigilance as well as the order dated 24th December, 1993 of the Managing director by which the officer on special duty was entrusted to act in his absence, mr. Sahi submits that O. S. D. held key post in the Corporation just below the Managing director. The petitioner has filled rejoinder to the counter affidavit contending that the memorandum of 1979 in which the posts were classified at the material time is not at all relevant inasmuch as subsequent order dated 6.1.1992 clearly discloses that Group a officer consists of General Manager, Deputy manager and Assistant General Manager and there was no post of officer on special duty. Mr. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, however, submits that after 1981 the post of O. S. D. in the Corporation ceased to exist and as such no pay scale was prescribed and therefore, shri Vidyarthi was appointed as officer on special duty in 1993 but Mr. Sahi has not been able to produce any materials showing the pay scale of O. S. D. in the Corporation when post was created for the appointment in the Year 1993. Undisputedly an officer appointed on deputation can either opt to retain the pay scale of parent deptt. with the deputation allowance or opt for the pay scale of the post to which he is appointed on deputation. In case the pay scale of O. S. D. created in the year 1993 was higher than that of the pay scale, Dr. Vidyarthi used to draw in his parent department there could-not be earthly reason for not opting for the pay scale of the post of o. S. D. in the Corporation by him. The pay scale is one of the important criteria for determining the rank and status of the government employees. In this connection it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the delhi High Court in the case of S. K. Srivastava vs. Union of India and ors. , reported in 1971 (2) Services Law Reporter, page 453. The pay scale is one of the important criteria for determining the rank and status of the government employees. In this connection it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the delhi High Court in the case of S. K. Srivastava vs. Union of India and ors. , reported in 1971 (2) Services Law Reporter, page 453. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment the delhi High Court held as follows : "the concept of "rank" being solely significant for the purposes of administration of services and the law relating to it, the Government has always applied the criterion of pay to distinguish one class or grade of service or post from anothesr. In fixing the pay of a particular post or the scale of pay of a particular service, the Government considers the status and responsibility attached to a particular post or class of service. For instance, rule 9 of the Indian Police Service Rules, 1954, specifically states that the Government declares one post as being equivalent to another and ensures that the pay which a member of the service would get in each post would be the same. The pay itself is determined by the government after taking into account the nature of the duties involved in the post as the Government would have already taken into account the nature of duties, responsibilities and the status of different posts before classifying them and would have indicated the classification by the fixation of different salaries or pay scales, the Courts should be well advised in regarding the pay or the scale of pay of post as the principal criterion to determine the rank of the post. " 4. In the absence of any other materials that the rank and status of the officer on special duty to which Dr. Vidyarthi was appointed was higher than that of the post of Assistant General Manager, the post held by the petitioner, I am inclined to hold that the pay scales or the posts should be the most important factor to determine the rank and status of the officer on special duty and the Assistant General Manager. Admittedly the pay scale of Assistant general Manager is higher than the pay scale drawn by Dr. Vidyarthi. Admittedly the pay scale of Assistant general Manager is higher than the pay scale drawn by Dr. Vidyarthi. As such, in respectful agreement with the observation made by the Delhi High Court in the case of s. K. Srivastava (supra), I hold that the pey scale of Assistant General Manager being higher than the post of O. S. D. held by Dr. Vidyarthi, the post of Assistant General manager held by the petitioner was higher in rank and status then the post of O. S. D. held by Sri Vidyarthi. That being so, Dr. Vidyarthi was not competent to hold domestic inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and consequently the enquiry proceeding and the finding given by dr. Vidyarthi was illegal and without jurisdiction. The order of dismissal passed on the basis of finding of the Conducting officer is also illegal and void and cannot be sustained. On the short ground alone, the petition must succeed. As such, I do not consider it expedient to go into the other points urged in the writ petition. 5. The petition is allowed and the impugned resolution/order dismissing the petitioner from service is set aside. The impugned order of dismissal having been set aside, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. In case the respondents decide to continue with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the proceedings shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today and in that contingency the petitioner shall be deemed to have been under suspension during the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement and shall be paid subsistance allowance for that period. It will remain open to the petitioner to raise and urge the points in future in respect of which no decision has been given in the judgment. I make no order as to costs.