Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30-6-2000 (Annexure P-37) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He has also challenged the order dated 14-4-2001 of the appellate authority by which the penalty of "dismissal" has been altered to "removal from service". ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Financial Advisor in Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bhopal, by order dated 23-6-1987. Decision to appoint him on this post was taken by the Board of Directors of this Corporation in the meeting held on 12-3-1987. The appointment order dated 23-6-1987 (Annexure P-3) was issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. The post held by the petitioner was redesignated as Executive Director (Finance ). By resolution dated 7-12-1995 (Annexures P-13 and P-14) the Board of Directors delegated the power of "imposition of penalty etc. " to the Managing Director. For recruitment of employees on sanctioned posts of Class-I Officers, the powers were with the Board of Directors. There was an amendment by resolution Annexure P-14. It was stipulated in this resolution that for all classes of employees the appointing authority would be the Managing Director, but for Class-I employees, prior approval of the Board of Directors would be necessary. ( 3. ) A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 13-11-1998. There were ten charges against him. He submitted reply to the charge-sheet. A retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry as per M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 2-3-2000 (Annexure P-35 ). He found charge Nos. 1 and 2 as partially proved and charge Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as fully proved. Charge Nos. 6 and 10 were held as not proved. The petitioner was supplied with the copy of the enquiry report and a show-cause notice was issued to him on 29-4-2000. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 5-6-2000. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the Managing Director of the Corporation by order dated 30-6-2000 (Annexure P-27 ). On appeal the penalty was altered from "dismissal" to "removal from service" by order dated 14-4-2001. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice on 5-6-2000. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the Managing Director of the Corporation by order dated 30-6-2000 (Annexure P-27 ). On appeal the penalty was altered from "dismissal" to "removal from service" by order dated 14-4-2001. The charges against the petitioner which were found to be proved were that he caused huge financial loss to the Corporation. ( 4. ) THE petitioners case is that he was appointed by the Board of Directors and, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from service could not be passed by the Managing Director. It is also pleaded that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority are perverse. According to the petitioner, the expenditure was incurred with the approval of the then Managing Director. ( 5. ) THE case of the respondents is that the Managing Director was the appointing authority for the post held by the petitioner on the date of his dismissal from service and, therefore, the Managing Director was legally entitled to pass the impugned order. The conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer are correct and based on evidence. ( 6. ) THE only point which has been argued during the hearing of this petition by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned action is illegal because the Managing Director could not take this action without the approval of the Board of Directors. ( 7. ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited several decisions but they are all under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. This article is not attracted in the present case. That is applicable to a member of a civil service of the Union or the State. The petitioner was not holding the "civil post" within the meaning of Article 311 (1 ). He was holding the post in M. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. An employee or Officer of the Corporation does not enjoy protection of Article 311 (1 ). Therefore, it cannot be contended that the petitioner could not be dismissed or removed "by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". This Constitutional guarantee is available to the holders of the civil post only. A statutory authority or a company being a separate entity is governed by the rules framed or adopted by it. ( 8. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the petitioner could not be dismissed or removed "by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed". This Constitutional guarantee is available to the holders of the civil post only. A statutory authority or a company being a separate entity is governed by the rules framed or adopted by it. ( 8. ) IN State Bank of India v. S. Vijaya Kumar, AIR 1991 SC 79, it has been held that the dismissal of the delinquent bank officers appointed initially by the Executive Committee of the Bank, by the Chief General Manager is valid, even though he is an authority lower in rank than the Executive Committee, as at the relevant time when the order was passed the Chief General Manager has become the appointing authority under the amended Regulations. The right which has been conferred on the employees of the State Bank contained in Regulation 55 (2) (a) is that such officers or employees shall not be dismissed from service of the State Bank by an authority lower than the appointing authority. A comparison of the provisions contained in Article 311 (1) of the Constitution and the right guaranteed to the employees of the State Bank under Regulation 52 (2) (a) shows that there is a material difference between the language used in the two provisions. Under Article 311 (1) the words used are "by which he was appointed". In Regulation 55 (2) (a) there are no such words "by which he was appointed" and in its place the only right guaranteed is that the employee shall not be dismissed by an authority lower than the appointing authority. Thus the right guaranteed in case of the officers or employees of the State Bank is that the order of dismissal cannot be passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority. The right that an officer or employee of the State Bank of India cannot be dismissed from service by an authority lower than the appointing authority is a creation of statutory rules and regulations. Admittedly the employees of the State Bank cannot seek any protection under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The employees of the State Bank can only claim such rights which have been conferred under Regulation 55 (2) (a) of the General Regulations. Admittedly the employees of the State Bank cannot seek any protection under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The employees of the State Bank can only claim such rights which have been conferred under Regulation 55 (2) (a) of the General Regulations. The only right conferred under the said provision is that the officers or employees of the State Bank cannot be dismissed by an authority lower than the appointing authority. When the order of dismissal has been passed, Chief General Manager had already become the appointing authority and as such the order of dismissal cannot be said to have been passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority. ( 9. ) AGAIN in Satinder Singh Arora v. State Bank of Patiala and Ors. , 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 224, a Bank Officer was appointed by the Board of Directors. At the time of passing of the order of removal from service the Managing Director was the appointing authority. Therefore, the order passed by him was held to be valid. It was further held that the bank employees are not entitled to claim protection under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. It is further clarified that the mere fact that by amendment the appointing authority designated is lower in rank than the Board should make no difference. ( 10. ) IN the present case the respondents have submitted a copy of the Madhya Pradcsh Rajya Nagrik Apoorti Nigam Ltd. (Classes I, II, III and IV) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1984. These rules are applicable to the employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited which is a successor Corporation of the M. P. Rajya Nagrik Apoorti Nigam. The "appointing Authority" has been defined in these rules. This definition is as under:-" appointing Authority" in respect of any post in the service, means the Chairman, Managing Director any officer subordinate to them to whom the powers of appointment to service or post have been or may hereafter be delegated by the Board. ( 11. The "appointing Authority" has been defined in these rules. This definition is as under:-" appointing Authority" in respect of any post in the service, means the Chairman, Managing Director any officer subordinate to them to whom the powers of appointment to service or post have been or may hereafter be delegated by the Board. ( 11. ) ACCORDING to Rule 2 (a) of the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 also the "appointing authority" in relation to a Government servant means (i) the authority empowered to make appointments to the service of which the Government servant is for the time being a member or to the grade of the service in which the Government servant is for the time being included; or (ii) the authority empowered to make appointments to the post which the Government servant for the time being holds. ( 12. ) AS stated above, the employees of the M. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited are not entitled to the protection of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution and, therefore, the appointing authority in relation to the Officers of the Corporation shall mean the authority empowered to make appointments at the time of removal of the employees from service. ( 13. ) AS mentioned above as per Resolution (Annexures P43 and P-14) full power for imposition of penalty of all kinds has been conferred on the Managing Director in respect of all the employees. He has also been declared as appointing authority for all classes of employees. The only rider is that for appointment of Class-I employees, he is required to obtain prior approval of the Board of Directors. In such a situation the Managing Director-is really the appointing authority for purposes of imposition of punishment. . The Board of Directors is not the appointing authority simply because its prior approval is required at the time of appointment. After the appointment, the Managing Director is the appointing authority for all purposes including for the purposes of imposition of penalty. ( 14. ) IN view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court cited above, the competence of the appointing authority is to be decided at the time of passing of the removal order. After the appointment, the Managing Director is the appointing authority for all purposes including for the purposes of imposition of penalty. ( 14. ) IN view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court cited above, the competence of the appointing authority is to be decided at the time of passing of the removal order. In case of the officers or the employees of the Corporation it is not material that by which authority they were actually appointed as Article 311 (1) of the Constitution does not apply to them. The order (Annexure P-37) passed by the Managing Director is according to law and in appeal it has been approved by the Chairman of the Corporation who was authorised by the Board of Directors to decide the appeal of the petitioner. ( 15. ) THE writ petition is dismissed.