JUDGMENT 1. - Substantial questions of law that involve in the appeal are - (i) Whether the appellate court was justified in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was confirmed in his appointment by Inspector General of Police particularly when Additional S.P. Liyakat Ali Khan had admitted in his statement that the plaintiff was appointed by the Inspector General of Police ? (ii) Whether the appellant could be ordered to be compulsorily retired by respondents No. 2 & 3 particularly when his appointing authority was Inspector General of Police ? 2. The plaintiff appellant (for short the plaintiff) was a constable in Rajasthan Police with his last posting at Police outpost Amarsar, Police Station Shahpur, District Jaipur. He was appointed on July 9, 1948 on the post of Constable by the Inspector General of Police of the erstwhile State of Rajasthan. He was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur vide order dated November 30, 1975 and the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range Jaipur converted the punishment of dismissal into that of compulsory retirement with effect from November 30, 1975, vide his order dated April 22, 1976. The plaintiff assailed the said orders by instituting a civil suit. Learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Jaipur City decreed the suit on Feb. 19, 1986 declaring the orders of the S.P. and Dy. I.G. as without jurisdiction. The defendant respondents (for short the defendants) preferred appeal against the said decree and the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City reversed the decree of the learned trial court on October 20, 1987. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court present action had been resorted to by the plaintiff. 3. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. 4. It is well settled that the constitutional guarantee given to a civil servant by Article 311 cannot be taken away either by the Legislature or by any rule made under Article 309 by the Governor. Thus, neither the Legislature nor the Governor may enact a rule under Article 309 vesting power of dismissal in a subordinate authority i.e. an authority subordinate in rank to the authority which had appointed the civil servant. Any rule or statute which permits such an action must be held to be ultra vires as infringing the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. 5. Any rule or statute which permits such an action must be held to be ultra vires as infringing the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. 5. In Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Mirza Khasim Ali Beg, AIR 1977 SC 744 a conductor was appointed in erstwhile State of Hyderabad by Superintendent of Traffic being also Head of Road Transport Department. After reorganization, General Manager became the Head of Department in the new State and post of Superintendent ceased to exist. Conductor was dismissed by Divisional Controller through appointing and dismissal authority in the new State and not by the Head of the Department. It was held that dismissal was violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. Protection available before Re-organisation cannot be whittled down or impaired by State Re-organisation Act. 6. In State of Rajasthan v. Ashraf Khan, 1971 WLN 208 respondent was appointed by Raj Pramukh but dismissed by Dy. Secretary. The order of dismissal was held invalid. 7. In State of J&K v. Raj Mohammed, 1971 SLR 828 (J&K) (FB) appointment of respondent was made by DIG Police. Subsequently power of appointment and dismissal vested in S.P. Dismissal order of the respondent passed by S.P. was held invalid as appointment was made by an officer superior in rank to S.P. 8. In the case on hand Shri Liyakat Ali Khan, Additional S.P. Jaipur, (DW1) admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiff was appointed by the Inspector General of Police. In the written statement the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated November 30, 1975, which was converted into order of compulsory retirement in appeal by the DIG. Admittedly the Superintendent of Police has become the appointing authority of Police constables by virtue of Rule 2A of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 (for short the Rules) but the constitutional guarantee given to the plaintiff by Article 311 cannot be taken away by framing the Rules. The plaintiff was appointed by the DIG Police and he could not have been dismissed by the S.P. Subsequent authorisation cannot whittle down the guarantee provided by Article 311 to the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was rightly decided by the learned trial Court but the learned Appellate Court reserved the finding without any basis. The S.P. and Dy. The plaintiff was appointed by the DIG Police and he could not have been dismissed by the S.P. Subsequent authorisation cannot whittle down the guarantee provided by Article 311 to the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was rightly decided by the learned trial Court but the learned Appellate Court reserved the finding without any basis. The S.P. and Dy. I.G. had no jurisdiction to compulsorily retires the plaintiff as he was appointed by the Inspector General of Police and these orders were violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. Learned first appellate court thus committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 9. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, the judgment and decree dated October 20, 1987 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City is set aside and the judgment and decree of learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3 Jaipur City shall stand confirmed. The defendant- respondents are directed to make payment of salary to the plaintiff-appellant from the date of superannuation together with all consequential benefits. The plaintiff-appellant shall also be entitled to costs throughout.Appeal allowed. *******