( 1 ) THROUGH this Letters Patent Appeal, judgment dated September 20, 1996 of learned single Judge passed in Misc. Petition No. 1867 of 1989 has been challenged. Briefly, facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal may be narrated hereafter: the petitioner/appellant was appointed lower Division Clerk on June 14, 1983 by the commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund, jabalpur. He joined the post on June 25, 1983. However, by order dated June 12, 1987 (Annex. P4), his services have been terminated. The petitioner challenged the termination order through Misc. Petition No. 1867 of 1989 which has been dismissed by order dated September 20, 1996. The ground of challenge was that the petitioner having acquired status of permanent employee after completion of extended period of probation, could not have been terminated. Another ground of challenge was that he has been terminated by an authority lower than the authority which appointed, meaning thereby he was appointed by Commissioner, Coal-mines provident Fund, Jabalpur and the order of termination has been passed by Assistant commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund, sidhi who is lower in rank to the appointing authority. One more grievance is that the petitioner was not apprised of his short-comings so as to enable him to make improvements, as required under sub-rule (6) of rule 7 of Coal-mines-Provident Fund (Employees Recruitment) Rules, 1982 (hereafter Rules ). ( 2 ) THE aforesaid challenges have not been accepted by learned single Judge and the petition has been dismissed. It is found that sub-rule (7) of Rule 7 of the Rules negatives case of automatic confirmation. Express order of confirmation was necessary, therefore, an employee continues to remain on probation till express order of confirmation in his favour is passed. It is also held that power to terminate the services of Group-C and Group-D staff stands delegated to all Regional commissioners/assistant Commissioners (Gr. 1 ). Therefore, order of termination in case of petitioner has been passed by Assistant commissioner who was competent to do so as per delegation order dated October 20, 1983 pursuant to a decision passed in meeting dated september 2, 1983. With respect to last submission, it is said that the petitioner was warned and cautioned to improve his conduct and behaviour and to remove short-comings, therefore, there has been substantial compliance of sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the rules. With respect to last submission, it is said that the petitioner was warned and cautioned to improve his conduct and behaviour and to remove short-comings, therefore, there has been substantial compliance of sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the rules. ( 3 ) THE first point for consideration is whether services of petitioner have been rightly terminated. It may be true that he was appointed on probation and till specific order of confirmation was passed, the petitioner was to continue in that capacity and his claim for automatic confirmation on completion of extended period of probation is not admissible but appointment order envisages another condition also, for compliance in case of temporary employment. There is requirement of one month's notice in writing or pay plus allowances in lieu thereof being given by either side. This requirement has not been complied with. Therefore, the termination is liable to be set aside on this ground. ( 4 ) ANOTHER aspect of the case is whether the petitioner has been terminated by authority lower in rank to the appointing authority. There is no dispute, petitioner was appointed by Commissioner of Coal-mines Provident fund, Jabalpur. His services has been terminated by Assistant Commissioner of coal-mines Provident Fund, Sidhi. Shri Lal shamindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondents raised two contentions on this question. First submission is that the termination has been authorised by the commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund and second is that the Assistant Commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund, Sidhi has been delegated the power of appointing authority, therefore, termination on this count is not vitiated. Shri Singh placed reliance on Apex court decision reported in Union of India and others v, Prabhat Chandra Mallick 1995 Supp (1) SCC 214 : 1995-11- LLJ-32. We are unable to appreciate the submissions advanced by Shri lal Shamindra Singh. ( 5 ) PERUSAL of communication dated June 9, 1987 demonstrates that the Coal-mines provident Fund Commissioner has not exercised the power of termination himself. Rather he has advised the Assistant commissioner Coal-mines Provident Fund, sidhi to terminate the services of the petitioner. This he did because the power of appointing had, been delegated to the Assistant commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund in a meeting dated September 2, 1983 and order to that effect is dated October 20, 1983 (sic ). Rather he has advised the Assistant commissioner Coal-mines Provident Fund, sidhi to terminate the services of the petitioner. This he did because the power of appointing had, been delegated to the Assistant commissioner of Coal-mines Provident Fund in a meeting dated September 2, 1983 and order to that effect is dated October 20, 1983 (sic ). The position comes to this that services of petitioner have not been terminated by the coal-mines Provident Fund Commissioner, who was the appointing authority of the petitioner but by an authority lower in rank namely, the Assistant Commissioner coal-mines Provident Fund, Sidhi. This question has been considered by Full Bench of delhi High Court in The Management of Delhi transport, Undertaking New Delhi v. B. B. L. Hajelay and another 1972 (2) SLR 299 and it is held that subordinate authority on delegation of power of appointment or removal cannot pass order of removal in respect of employees appointed by higher authority prior to delegation of powers and that no regulation could be framed to provide that an employee could be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. This decision has been followed by single Judge of the same Court in Takhat Singh v. Corporation of Delhi 1973 (2) SLR 350. The Supreme Court decision in Krishna Kumar v. Divisional assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway and others AIR 1979 SC 1912 holds, in paragraphs 5 and 6 thus:"5. In defence of the legality of the order of removal, counsel for the respondents relies on paragraph 2 of respondent 1's affidavit, dated January 7, 1978, wherein he has stated that the power to make appointments to the posts of the Train Lighting Inspector was delegated to certain other officers including the Divisional Assistant Electrical engineer. It is urged that since the divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer has been given the power to make appointments to the posts of the Train Lighting Inspector, he would have the power to remove any person from that post. We cannot accept this contention. 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. We cannot accept this contention. 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 Article 311 (1) becomes available to the person holding, for example, a civil post under the constitution of India, has to be determined with reference to the state of affairs existing on the date of appointment. The respondent was appointed by the Coal Mines Welfare commissioner and he is dismissed by the very same officer. " ( 6 ) TURNING to the facts of the case, it be reiterated that the petitioner was appointed by coal-mines Provident Fund Commissioner on june 14, 1983. So his services could be terminated by that authority. The power was delegated to Coal- mines Regional Provident fund Commissioner and Coal-mines Provident fund Assistant Commissioner by order dated october 20, 1983. Therefore, it is patently clear that services of the petitioner have been terminated by authority subordinate to appointing authority. The petitioner is a member of civil service of the Union, holder of a Civil post under it. Protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is available to him. Therefore, his services could not be terminated by authority subordinate to the authority which appointed him. Constitutional protection available to civil servants under article 311 cannot be eroded or annihilated by any rule or regulation providing mode which runs counter to it. For this reason as well, the termination is liable to set aside. No other submission was advanced by the parties. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Letters Patent appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated September 20, 1996 is set aside. Termination of the petitioner by order dated June 12, 1987 (Annex. P4) is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to be in service in capacity he enjoyed on June 12, 1987. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner in service, he does not deserve more than half of back wages from June 12, 1987 till date. ( 8 ) COST on parties. .