Judgment :- (Appeal under Cl.15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 11-1-1999 in W.P. No.6558 of 1991.) Elipe DHARMA RAO, J. This writ appeal challenges the order dated 11-1-1999 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein. 2. The respondent herein was working as Divisional Accountant in the appellant Board. He was issued with a charge memo alleging certain irregularities in acceptance of tenders and award of work to a particular individual. He submitted his explanation, denying the charges. His explanation was not accepted by the Board and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. In the enquiry, he was found guilty and he was imposed the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Superintendent for a period of two years with effect from 1-5-1991 and that the period of reduction to the lower post of Superintendent shall operate to postpone the future increments in the higher post of Divisional Accountant for a period of two years and that the period for which the reduction was ordered would be exclusive of any interval spent on leave before the period was completed. The respondent challenged the order imposing the penalty by filing a writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge quashed the order and allowed the writ petition on the ground that under the Service Regulations of the Board the Chief Engineer is the competent authority to impose the punishment of reduction in rank and the Managing Director is the appellate authority, but since the in the present case the issuance of the charge memo, conduct of the enquiry and imposition of penalty were done by the Managing Director himself, the writ petitioner has lost the right of appeal before the Managing Director. Challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge, the Board has filed this writ appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, as per the Service Regulations, Managing Director is the competent authority to conduct the enquiry against the respondent and impose punishment and the finding of the learned Judge that Chief Engineer is the competent authority is wholly erroneous. The post of Divisional Accountant, which the respondent was holding at the relevant time, is not a post falling under Category 4(iv) of Clause 7 of the Regulations. Relying on the order issued by the Government in Lr. The post of Divisional Accountant, which the respondent was holding at the relevant time, is not a post falling under Category 4(iv) of Clause 7 of the Regulations. Relying on the order issued by the Government in Lr. No.65014-A/Personal-N/88-3 dated 27-7-1988 that in all disciplinary cases where more than one Government servant is involved, the authority to take disciplinary action shall be the authority of the department concerned in respect in respect of the highest category of Government servant of that department involved in the case and that that authority should deal with all the Government servants involved belonging to that department together and finalise the disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, the Managing Director had imposed the punishment to the petitioner along with the Executive Engineer as he is the competent authority to pass orders in respect of Executive Engineer. Learned counsel further submitted that against the order of punishment imposed by the Managing Director, appeal lies to the Board. The respondent, without exhausting the appeal remedy, has straight away filed the writ petition. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned single Judge that the entire exercise of issuing the charge sheet, conduct of enquiry and imposition of penalty by the Managing Director is illegal as the respondent has been deprived of the appeal remedy is unsustainable in law and liable to rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SOMNATH SAHU v. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS ( 1969 (3) SCC 384 ) in support of his argument that High Court is not constituted under Article 26 of the Constitution as a Court of Appeal over the decision of a statutory authority hearing the appeal and that the High Court may interfere where the statutory authority has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or where it has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the impugned order passed by the Managing Director is in violation of the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the Managing Director instead of passing the order imposing the penalty should have directed the Chief Engineer to pass the order and by passing the order himself, the respondent has been deprived of right of appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the Managing Director instead of passing the order imposing the penalty should have directed the Chief Engineer to pass the order and by passing the order himself, the respondent has been deprived of right of appeal. Learned counsel further contended that when once the service rules and regulations prescribed a particular authority to pass an order of punishment against an employee belonging to a particular cadre, such exercise could be done only by that prescribed authority and by no one else. Therefore, when the rules and regulations prescribe Chief Engineer is the competent authority, passing of the order by the Managing Director is illegal and against the rules and regulations. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in SURJIT GHOSH v. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND OTHERS (1995) 2 SCC 474 , which was followed in ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA v. G. MURALIDHAR (2001 [10] SCC 43). 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. We have carefully gone through the entire material placed on record, including the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge and the applicable rules and regulations. 7. On the basis of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the only point for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the Managing Director imposing the punishment of reduction in rank and stoppage of increments against the respondent is sustainable in law. 8. Learned single Judge has extensively gone into the matter and observed in paragraph 5 of the impugned order that as per the rules and regulations, the Chief Engineer is the competent authority to impose the penalty of reduction in rank and Managing Director is the appellate authority, but in the present case, the Managing Director himself has issued the charge memo, conducted the enquiry and imposed the penalty, which deprived the petitioner his right of appeal under the rules and regulations. On this ground, the learned single Judge held that the enquiry conducted by the Superintending Engineer and also the enquiry conducted by the Managing Director and the final order passed by the Managing Director are illegal for the simple reason that the petitioner has lost his right to file an appeal. On this ground, the learned single Judge held that the enquiry conducted by the Superintending Engineer and also the enquiry conducted by the Managing Director and the final order passed by the Managing Director are illegal for the simple reason that the petitioner has lost his right to file an appeal. After going through the entire material placed on record, we are satisfied that the by virtue of the order of punishment passed by the Managing Director, the respondent was deprived of right of appeal. In Electronics Corporation of India case, cited supra, the Supreme Court has held infliction of punishment by the appellate authority acting as the disciplinary authority amounts to denial of right of appeal to the delinquent employee and such exercise is bad and illegal. We see no reason to interfere with the above findings of the learned single Judge. 9. The writ appeal has no merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.