JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application for review of a judgment and order dated March 26, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5897/93. 2. The original writ application was filed by the writ petitioner applicant challenging his order of dismissal bearing No. F. 1(23)/22/Estt/89/7789 dated Nov. 26, 1993 passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. By a judgment and order dated March 26, 1996 the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application holding inter alia that if an order of conviction is recorded by the trial Court, the incumbent can be removed without awaiting for the final decision, thereby meaning that till the appeal was decided the Disciplinary Authority need not wait. 3. As and when a special appeal was filed by the writ petitioner applicant before a Division Bench being D.B. Civil Special No. 241/96 , it was argued by the writ petitioner applicant in the said appeal that he did not dispute the legal position that his services after his conviction by the competent criminal Court could be terminated by the competent disciplinary authority even during the pendency of the appeal. In the present case the order terminating his services was passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar who was not competent authority to do so because he was not his appointing authority. The appointing authority was the Commissioner Colonisation and as such he was the only competent authority to pass an order terminating his services. Since this ground was neither raised by the writ petitioner applicant before the learned single Judge nor was it taken in the pleadings and it was not considered and decided by the learned single Judge in the judgment, the Division Bench thought it proper that if the writ petitioner had not agitated this point/ground before the learned single Judge he could file a review petition before the learned single Judge but the point could not be decided at the present stage by the Division Bench. The appeal accordingly stood dismissed but liberty was granted to the writ petitioner applicant to file a review petition before the learned single Judge for redressal of his grievances. The Division Bench judgment is dated May 10, 1996. 4. The delay having been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by an order dated April 28, 1996, this Court entertained the review application. The Division Bench judgment is dated May 10, 1996. 4. The delay having been condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by an order dated April 28, 1996, this Court entertained the review application. In the review application the point was taken that the writ petitioner applicant was appointed by the Colonisation Commissioner and keeping his lien intact, his services were placed before the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. An additional affidavit was filed by the respondents giving out inter alia that legal section of the Colonisation Department stood transferred to the office of the Collector and as such petitioner came under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Collector. 5. Shri Sunder Lal Soni, Assistant Collector (writs), Sri Ganganagar filed an additional affidavit on behalf of the respondents on July 11, 1997. It was given out in the said affidavit that at the time when the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was issued, he was holding the post of L.D.C. and the Collector, Sri Ganganagar was competent and authorised to pass the order under challenge. Insofar as the status of the writ petitioner applicant was concerned it was submitted that he was working in the Colonisation Department and there was a change in the staffing pattern of the Colonisation Department and the post of Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (writs), IGNP, Bikaner came to be abolished and in its place another post known as Assistant Commissioner (writs), Sri Ganganagar came to be created and this post of LDC was under Collector, Sri Ganganagar in terms of the Finance Department's order dated August 20, 1988. 6. Pursuant to the change of the staffing pattern, such staff which was attached with the abolished office of Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (writs), IGNP, Bikaner came to be transferred under Collector, Sri Ganganagar and they were posted in the office of the Assistant Collector (writs), Sri Ganganagar. In this regard the Revenue Department (Colonisation) issued an order dated August 29, 1988 and in compliance of that order, an order dated Oct. 26, 1988 was passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner. In the order the name of the writ petitioner applicant figures at S.No. 3 and his status is shown as L.D.C. In his service book necessary entries were also made in terms that the aforesaid order of the Government as well as order of Colonisation Department. 26, 1988 was passed by the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner. In the order the name of the writ petitioner applicant figures at S.No. 3 and his status is shown as L.D.C. In his service book necessary entries were also made in terms that the aforesaid order of the Government as well as order of Colonisation Department. It is thus evident that the writ petitioner applicant was an employee of the Collectorate, Sri Ganaganar and while working under the Collector, Sri Ganganagar he was transferred from time to time and upon being transferred to the Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar the petitioner had availed of all the facilities and benefits from the Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar and he was transferred to various places under the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and in order to substantiate the aforesaid plea, he filed a photostat copy of the leave account of the petitioner as maintained in his personal file which was marked as Annexure R/4. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that it was evidently clear that the petitioner was an employee of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and accordingly the Collector, Sri Ganganagar was fully authorised and competent to pass the order which was under challenge in the writ petition. 7. Another additional affidavit was sworn on July 27, 1997 by the said Assistant Collector (writs), Shri Sunder Lal Soni and it was given out that while the writ petitioner applicant was working in the Colonisation Department, the office of the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (writs) was abolished and in its place, another office of the Collector (writs) was constituted under the Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar vide Annexure R/1 and thereafter the writ petitioner applicant came to be transferred to Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar and was placed at the disposal of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar vide order Annexure R/2 and since then he is working in the Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar. 8. Since the writ petitioner applicant was holding the post of a clerk, it was submitted that the Collector became his disciplinary authority within the meaning of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and the Collector was competent to pass an order in terms of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. 9. Insofar as Annexure 7 is concerned, it was finally issued by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. 9. Insofar as Annexure 7 is concerned, it was finally issued by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. Of course till then a final order was passed the matter was being examined at various levels although the legal position was very much clear. However, the matter was referred to the Government and the same was examined by the Government and the Government through its Colonisation Department informed that the latter is competent to pass appropriate order. A copy of the letter dated August 16, 1993 was marked as Annexure R/5. Since the writ petitioner applicant was holding the post of a clerk, therefore, in this respect, the Collector was competent under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 to deal with him and the Collector became the disciplinary authority when the writ petitioner was transferred to the Collectorate vide Annexure 2. Thus' the Collector was competent and had rightly passed the order under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. 10. There was yet another additional affidavit, this time filed by the N. writ petitioner applicant, it was submitted inter alia in the said affidavit that it was true that in accordance with the order dated August 29, 1988 the post of Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (writs) IGNP, Bikaner came to be abolished and the Assistant Collector (writs), Sri Ganganagar came to be created under the Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the staff which was attached to the abolished office came to be transferred under the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, but the petitioner was not at the relevant time posted in the office of the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (writs), IGNP, Bikaner thereby meaning that he was not in the abolished office of the Assistant Commissioner Colonisation (writs), IGNP, Bikaner. That is hardly credible. 11. On August 26, 1988 Commissioner Colonisation, IGNP, Bikaner handed over the services of the writ petitioner to the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. The order itself made it clear that it is a transfer order about which mention was made by the writ petitioner in para 10 of the writ application. Due to this order even though the writ petitioner came under the administrative control of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar but his lien would still remain in the office of the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner as was evident enough from the Annexure 4 submitted with the said writ application. 12. Due to this order even though the writ petitioner came under the administrative control of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar but his lien would still remain in the office of the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner as was evident enough from the Annexure 4 submitted with the said writ application. 12. It was contended by the petitioner that though the Collector, Sri Ganganagar was the appropriate authority to whom his services were handed over by the previous authority under whom he served but it could not be said that the Collector, Sri Ganganagar became the Disciplinary Authority also. It may be sufficient there for the time being to submit that from Annexure 7 presented with the writ petition it was evident that the Collector, Sri Ganganagar was not the appointing authority as the application made by the petitioner for compulsory retirement was sent to the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, it was on instructions received from the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner vide his letter dated Oct. 10, 1992 that the Collector, Sri Ganganagar rejected the application of the petitioner for compulsory retirement. This goes to show that the Collector, Sri Ganganagar was not himself sure about whether he was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and by necessary implication by transfer of his service became the appointing authority as well. 13. Annexure 8 presented by the writ petitioner applicant along with the petitioner made it clear that all the correspondents regarding dismissal proceedings of the writ petitioner applicant were going on between the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner and the Deputy Secretary to the Government. This also went to show that the Collector, Sri Ganganagar had no authority to pass a dismissal order in the case of the writ petitioner. On Oct. 12, 1992 the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner sought clarification from the Government of Rajasthan through the Deputy Secretary regarding the authority who was competent to dismiss the writ petitioner but despite that letter no clear-cut instructions were given by the State Government disclosing whatsoever as to who was the competent person having the authority to dismiss the writ petitioner. It was further averred that even on this day the Commissioner Colonisation, IGNP, Bikaner is functioning as it was in the year 1988. It was further averred that even on this day the Commissioner Colonisation, IGNP, Bikaner is functioning as it was in the year 1988. On the date of his conviction the writ petitioner was working in the office of the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner even though he was transferred to the office of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar. His lien remained with the Colonisation Department as was clear from Annexure 4. His seniority list was being maintained by the Colonisation Department. It was further contended that since the Commissioner Colonisation Bikaner was still functioning, therefore, it was the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner who remained the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the petitioner and not the Collector. It was further submitted that from Annexures submitted by the respondents along with their additional affidavits which related mostly to the year 1988 but even after that as far back as in the year 1992-93 there was correspondence regarding dismissal of the writ petitioner between the Commissioner Colonisation and the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan and that correspondence went a long way to show that the orders passed in 1988 did not bring the petitioner under the disciplinary authority of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar but it remained with the Commissioner Colonisation, Bikaner. 14. Mr. R.S. Kang, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before me a judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar v. The Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1912 . It was held in this case that if an employee had been removed from service by an order passed by the authority who at any rate was subordinate in rank to the original appointing authority on the date of employee's appointment, the order of removal was a patent violation of the provisions of Art. 311(1) of the Constitution. Whether or not an authority is subordinate in rank to another has to be determined with reference to the state of affairs existing on the date of appointment. It is at that point of time that the constitutional guarantee under Art. 311(1) becomes available. The subsequent authorisation made in favour of the authority passing the order of removal in regard to making appointments to the post held by the appellant employee cannot confer upon him the power to remove him. Delegation of the power to make a particular appointment does not enhance or improve the hierarchical status of the delegate. The subsequent authorisation made in favour of the authority passing the order of removal in regard to making appointments to the post held by the appellant employee cannot confer upon him the power to remove him. Delegation of the power to make a particular appointment does not enhance or improve the hierarchical status of the delegate. An officer subordinate to another will not become his equal in rank by reason of his coining to possess some of the powers of that another. In the facts of the given case the Divisional Engineer did not cease to be subordinate in rank to the Chief Electrical Engineer merely because the latter's power to make appointments to certain posts has been delegated to him. 15. I have minutely observed the proposition of law as contended by the writ petitioner applicant on the one hand and the respondents' learned Advocate on the other. Regard being had to the fact that the original office of the Commissioner Colonisation, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Bikaner does not exist in its original shape and form and insofar as petitioner's services are concerned, it was transferred along with the entire staff and merged with the office of the Assistant Collector (writs), Sri Ganganagar which was a part and parcel of the office of the Collector, Sri Ganganagar, I am of the considered view that the Collector, Sri Ganganagar became the disciplinary authority in the present context of the disciplinary proceedings taken against the writ petitioner applicant and the order of termination as passed by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar is absolutely a valid order. There is no merit in the writ petitioner's contentions. The facts as enunciated in the reported decision in Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway (ibid) are not attracted to the facts of the present case. 16. The review application accordingly stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******