Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing an order dated 2-12-1995, contained in Annexure issued by the Under Secretary, Bihar public Service Commission (in short the commission) (respondent No.12)whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the charges of corruption and gross misconduct. 2. This writ petition is being disposed of after hearing the parties on a solitary question whether Sri M. M. P. Srivastava (Respondent No.12) holding the post of Under Secretary of the Commission at the relevant time, was empowered under sub-section (3) of section 31 of the Bihar Public Service commission (Conditions of Service)Regulations, 1960 (in short the regulations) to impose penalties against the petitioner as prescribed under Rule 2 of the Bihar Subordinate service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (in short rules ). 3. As would appear from the pleadings of the parties the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant secretary of the Commission. On the allegation of mal-practice, tampering with records with vested interest to recommend names of his own men and other misconducts, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24-8-1994. The authorities also initiated a departmental proceeding and served memorandum of charges with the petition on 9-1-1995. A copy of the memorandum of charges is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Officer on Special Duty of the commission, who was the conducting officer in this case, submitted his enquiry report on 14-9-1996, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. There is no dispute that the petitioner was also given an opportunity to file the second show cause. 4. Undisputedly, the Assistant secretary is one of the posts of ministerial officers as defined under Section 3. As per sub-section (I) of Sec.31 of the Regulation, ministerial officer and inferior servants of the Commission shall, subject to the control of the chairman, be, appointed by the secretary. As per sub-section (3) of Sec.31, the authorities which may impose any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 2 of the Rules, shall be the secretary of the Commission and the appellate authority the Chairman. The appointment of the Secretary of the commission is to be made by the State government. But unfortunately, at the relevant time, the post of Secretary of the Commission was lying vacant. 5. Dr. The appointment of the Secretary of the commission is to be made by the State government. But unfortunately, at the relevant time, the post of Secretary of the Commission was lying vacant. 5. Dr. Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of mandatory requirement as incorporated under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution read with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Sec.31 (1) of the Regulation, as framed under Article 309 by the State government, no person who is a member of Civil Service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or the State, shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. In the instant case, admittedly, the Secretary of the Commission was the appointing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, Mr. M. M. P. Shrivastava, being Under Secretary had no authority to dismiss the petitioner from service. 6. Mr. Ghose, while highlighting the nature of allegations against the petitioner, also referred to a copy of order dated 24-11-1995, issued by Sri n. N. Shrivastava, Under Secretary to the Commission to show that due to the vacancy against the post of Secretary, sri M. M. P. Mishra was delegated with certain powers of the Secretary by the chairman to look after the work of the establishment, copy of which is Annexure R-2/a to the counter affidavit. He contended that having regard to the nature of allegation against the petitioner, since the Chairman was prescribed as appellate authority against the order of the Secretary and there was no other senior officer to that of Sri shrivastava, he had no option but to confer powers under sub-section (3) of the Regulations to Shri Shrivastava. 7. Undisputedly, the appointment of the Secretary is to be made by the state Government. This is also not in dispute that as per statutory requirement of the Regulation in question, it is only the Secretary of the Commission who is the authority under sub-section (3) of Sec.31 to impose any of the penalty as prescribed under Rule 2 of the Bihar Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This also cannot be disputed that Sri Shrivastava at the relevant time was holding a post of under Secretary which is definitely much below the rank of Secretary. 8. Mr. This also cannot be disputed that Sri Shrivastava at the relevant time was holding a post of under Secretary which is definitely much below the rank of Secretary. 8. Mr. Ghose, as I have already noticed, made an effort to show that because of the gravity of the charges against the petitioner and since the post of Secretary was lying vacant, the Chairman had no option but to, delegate the powers of the Secretary to Sri M. M. P. Shrivastava who was holding a post of under Secretary. 9. Unfortunately, there is no provision under the Regulation nor any other statutory provision was brought to my notice which may authorise the chairman of the Commission to delegate powers of the Secretary under section 31 of Regulation to a person of lower rank. The statutory provision as I have already noticed, under sub-section (3) of the Sec.31, exclusively confines such jurisdiction to the Secretary of the Commission and none else. It is well known that as per the mandate of article 311 of the Constitution as well as in view of several authoritative pronouncements, no person holding a civil post under a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed by1 the secretary of the Commission. Therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the Under Secretary is without jurisdiction and therefore ah initio void. The nature of allegation and gravity of charges may be serious. But punishment for such charges can only be imposed by an authority upon whom powers are conferred by the statute. It was, therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay for the State Government as well as the respondent Chairman to take steps for appointment of competent authority as secretary of the Commission or delegate such power to an officer who is not below the rank of Secretary. 10. Be that as it may, in the background of the facts noticed above, I have no option but to quash the impugned order dated 2-12-1995 (Annexure 1)with a direction to the respondent chairman of the Commission as well as the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to take prompt steps so that fresh order can be recorded by the competent authority in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this application is disposed of. Order Accordingly.