JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sri B.Lal, Chairman: 1. The claim petition has been filed for setting aside the suspension order dated 12.6.2007, (Annexure-10) charge sheet dated 4.7.2007, (Annexure-11) punishment order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-P.A.-l) and subsequent punishment order dated 29.11.2007 (AnnexurePA.-2). 2. Brief facts giving rise to the claim petition are that petitioner was initially appointed as Logging Officer on 9.11.1984 (Annexure-PA-13) on ad-hoc basis and on the basis of interview appointed on temporary basis on 1.2.1985. Subsequently, by order dated 18.3.1991, (Annexure-A1) petitioner was promoted as Divisional Logging Manager, Shivalik Logging Division, Dehradun by Govt. of U.P. dated 18.3.1991. In pursuance to the order dated 18.3.1991 promotion order was issued by Managing Director on 19.3.1991, (Annexure-A-l) He opted for the State of Uttarakhand and remained posted as Divisional Logging Manager at the creation of Sate. During his posting at Dehradun after creation of State of Uttarakhand, he was appreciated for the good service by the State Government and awarded various awards. The copies of the certificates have been filed as Annexure-1. 3. The services of the petitioner are governed by rules known as U.P. Forest Corporation Rules "1985, which were framed under Rule 9 and 54 of UP Forest Corporation Act 1974. The rules came into existence w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Inter alia it is contended that the appointing authority of the Divisional Logging Manager, as per rules, is the Nigam and therefore Managing Director had no power to suspend, reduce in rank or terminate the service of the petitioner. 4. Further, it is submitted that petitioner was placed at SI. No.3 in the seniority list up to 2001, however he was placed at. No. 13 without affording any opportunity, therefore he had to make representations against the lowering of his seniority. The then Managing Director, Shri D.S. Tomar who was going to be superannuated shortly, suspended him and subsequently enquiry was instituted and charge sheet was issued against the petitioner. The Managing Director awarded two separate punishments on the basis of same enquiry report, one on 28.11.2007 after revoking the suspension order, reducing the rank of the petitioner to that of Logging Officer along with certain other punishment and on next date i.e. 29.11.2007, .another punishment order was passed by which his services were terminated by Sri D.S. Tomar, Managing Director of the Corporation without any jurisdiction. It was stated by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and admitted by Ld. It was stated by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and admitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that Sh. D.S. Tomar, the then Managing Director retired on 30.11.2007. 5. Aggrieved with the orders, a writ petition No. 231/07 (S/B) was filed by the petitioner before Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed on 6.9.2007 by Hon'ble High Court on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before this Tribunal. 6. As per averment made in the written statement, it is stated that there were only 8 posts of Logging Officer in the year 1984 in the State of UP and only 8 posts of Logging Officer were advertised in the newspaper on 12.3.1984. The recruitments were required to be made on the basis of written test followed by interview. The written test was held on 5.8.1984. The petitioner did not appear in the written test and sought exemption from appearing in the written test and was allowed to appear only in interview. On the basis of interview he was appointed as Logging Office, therefore his initial appointment was illegal and against rules. The services of petitioner were neither regularised nor his promotion was according to the rules. It is also stated that petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as Logging Officer. It is further stated that there was a bar in appointment on ad-hoc employees in 1984 and thus, his initial appointment was made against rules. It is further stated that Managing Director is the Controlling and disciplinary authority of Divisional Logging Manager, and therefore no irregularity has been committed by the Managing Director in suspending the petitioner on severe charges and subsequently passing the order reducing the rank of the petitioner and terminating the services of the petitioner. 7. Heard Sri Amit Chaudhary, Advocate with Sri K.J. Singh learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, Learned Assistant Presenting Officer and Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. 7. Heard Sri Amit Chaudhary, Advocate with Sri K.J. Singh learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, Learned Assistant Presenting Officer and Sri Rajeshwar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. It would be pertinent to mention certain relevant dates pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner; the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis by order dated 19.11.1984 on the condition that he shall appear in forthcoming interview arranged for the recruitment of Logging Officer and subsequently on the basis of interview appointed on regular basis by order dated 1.2.1985 and thereafter he continued to be working on the post of Logging Officer till 1991 when petitioner was promoted by Government letter dated 18.3.1991 on the post of Divisional' Logging Manager. In pursuance to the Government letter, the Managing Director issued promotion order in favour of the petitioner and was placed under one year's probation vide letter dated 19.3.1991. He has been working as officiating Logging Officer by order dated 10.1.1986 issued by Managing Director and posted at Dehradun. On creation of Uttarakhand State, petitioner opted for the State of Uttarakhand and thereafter he remained posted as Divisional Logging Manager under State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner was placed at SI. No.3 in the seniority list up to 2001 and subsequently placed at SI. No. 13. 9. It is alleged by the petitioner that he had to make representation against the wrong fixation of his seniority to the Managing Director and to the Government. However, then Managing Director Sri D.S. Tomar who was going to be superannuated shortly, annoyed With the petitioner for having made the representation to the Government and suspended him by order dated 26.4.2007 inter ealia on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal and he has on the ground that his initial appointment was illegal and he has committed several financial irregularities. An enquiry was instituted and charge sheet was issued against the petitioner and petitioner was awarded punishment by order dated 28.11.2007 by which among other punishments his rank was reduced to Logging a Officer and on next date i.e. 29.11.2007,on the basis of same enquiry report services of petitioner were terminated just before retirement of Managing Director. Therefore, it is contended that Managing Director, passed the impugned punishment orders without jurisdiction with intend to cause loss of job to the petitioner and damage his reputation. 10. Therefore, it is contended that Managing Director, passed the impugned punishment orders without jurisdiction with intend to cause loss of job to the petitioner and damage his reputation. 10. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner are governed by the rules known as Forest Corporation Service Regulations which came into force w.e.f. 1.4.1985 .The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of recruitment of the petitioner, these rules were not in existence, therefore there is no question of violation of Rules. As regards the appointing authority of the Divisional Logging Manager, as per Schedule C of the Regulation, powers of appointment are vested with the Corporation. Since Corporation was the appointing authority of Divisional Logging Manager, therefore the Managing Director had no jurisdiction to pass punishment order. On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that Managing Director was fully empowered to impose punishment as he was the controlling authority of the Corporation employee. It is further argued that petitioner was never promoted by the Corporation as Divisional Logging Manager and therefore no benefit of service regulation can be claimed by the petitioner. On perusal of the promotion order dated 18.3.1991, it is observed that same was passed by the Govt. of UP with the direction to the Managing Director to place the same before Corporation to complete the formality only as the rules were made applicable retrospectively after the appointment of petitioner, the Managing Director in pursuance to Govt. order issued promotion order dated 19.3.1991. Respondents have nowhere stated that matter was placed before Board for which no liability can be attributed to the petitioner; directions were issued to Managing Director, Respondent No.2 and not to petitioner. 11. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that their contention that Managing Director has no power to impose any punishment is further strengthened from the agenda of 29th Meeting of the Corporation which was circulated by letter dated 5.2.2008. One of the item of agenda relates to delegation of powers to the Managing Director regarding the disciplinary action of the Corporation employees. On perusal of the Board proceedings dated 8.2.2008 filed as Annexure PA-19 it is observed that the proposal was turned down by the Board. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in this connection also filed a news item published in the paper that the proposal for giving powers to the Managing Director has been turned down. On perusal of the Board proceedings dated 8.2.2008 filed as Annexure PA-19 it is observed that the proposal was turned down by the Board. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in this connection also filed a news item published in the paper that the proposal for giving powers to the Managing Director has been turned down. On the other hand respondents could not show that any such powers were ever delegated to Managing Director, nor respondents could show that any approval of the Board was taken by Managing Director before proceeding against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the Managing Director had no power to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner as he was not empowered to take any disciplinary action and terminate the services of the petitioner. Had Managing Director been empowered to undertake disciplinary action against Corporation employees, there was no necessity to make such request before the Corporation. Therefore, in the absence of any approval of the Board, the order of the Managing Director is without jurisdiction and against Service Rules. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that representation of the petitioner is pending before the Board but no decision has been taken by the Board inspite of specific direction issued by the Tribunal by order dated 18.1.2008 till date. Moreover the punishment order suffers from patent jurisdictional illegality and cam10t be cured in any 'Circumstances in view of the provision contained in Schedule C of the Regulations 1985. 12. There is another aspect of the matter, two separate punishments were passed by the Managing Director, (Respondent No.2). By order dated 18.11.2007 second punishment including reduction in rank from the post of Divisional Logging Manager to Logging Officer was passed and again on 29.11.2007 services of the petitioner as Logging Officer were terminated. It seems that Managing Director,.(Respondent No.2), himself was not sure whether he has the powers to terminate the services of Cogging Officer under 1985 Rules. Therefore, to assume the powers of Respondent No.2, first reduced the rank of the petitioner and on subsequent date terminated the services of the petitioner. 13. The initial appointment of the petitioner as Logging Officer is being challenged after about 23 years. In the matter of Union of India Vs. Kishori Lal Babwani, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Appointment made cannot be disturbed after more than ten years". 13. The initial appointment of the petitioner as Logging Officer is being challenged after about 23 years. In the matter of Union of India Vs. Kishori Lal Babwani, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Appointment made cannot be disturbed after more than ten years". It may further be stated that after initial appointment petitioner was not only promoted to the post of Divisional Logging Manager, but his services were regularised and appreciated and awarded merit certificate as filed by the petitioner in support of his contention. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner for seeking his appointment or not taking approval from Board and the State cannot challenge its own order. In the matter of State of Orissa Vs. Mangalam Timber Products, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Even the State cannot allow to take advantage of its own omission". Further reliance has been placed by both the parties on the judgment passed in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi. In our opinion the law laid down in the said judgment supports the case of the petitioner as he is continuously in service from 1984 and in 1991 he was given promotion and since then he has continued in the service and has put in about 23 years' service. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the illegal and irregular appointment made de-hoars to the rules against constitutional scheme, however, in Para 53 it was held that, "Services of such irregular appointed who had worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts, but not under cover of the orders of the Court or the Tribunal may be regularised". It is further held that, "We also clarify that Regularisation, if any already made but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment. But there should be 'no further bypass of constitutional requirement and Regularisation or for making permanent those not duly appointed as per constitutional scheme". As held earlier, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984, with condition to pass interview being held for the recruitment of the Divisional Logging Manager. Petitioner cleared the interview and Managing Director issued regular appointment with one year probation. In the year 1991 Govt. As held earlier, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984, with condition to pass interview being held for the recruitment of the Divisional Logging Manager. Petitioner cleared the interview and Managing Director issued regular appointment with one year probation. In the year 1991 Govt. of UP regularised the services of the petitioner and promoted to the post of Divisional Logging Manager in pursuance which again the Managing Director issued promotion order, thus services of the petitioner are protected under the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 53 of the judgment. Therefore, the 'reliance placed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents is completely misconceived and therefore nor relevant. 14. Ld. Counsel for the respondents cited number of case laws which relate to the appointment made in violation of constitutional scheme of equal opportunity as enshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Few of the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondents are AIR 2007 Supreme, Court 628 State of UP and others Vs: Desh Raj. The judgment is based on violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It may be stated that the rules of recruitment known as UP Forest Corporation Rules 1985, were not in existence in 1984 when the petitioner was initially recruited as Logging Officer. Further, he was allowed to appear in the interview along with other candidates as per direction in the initial appointment dated 9.11.1984 and was declared successful and thereafter appointed as Logging Officer. Ld. Counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment passed in the matter of Supd. of Post Offices Vs. E. Kunhiraman Nair Muliyar, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "A temporary Government servant has no right to hold the post whenever the competent authority is satisfied that the work and conduct of a temporary servant is not satisfactory or that his continuance in service is not in public interest on account of his unsuitability." Above cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are based on irregular appointments made against rules. The action contemplated in such cases is only by the competent athodyd. The action contemplated in such cases is only by the competent athodyd. In the instant case Managing Director was not competent to punish the petitioner who is Group A Government servant as per Schedule 'C', of the rules and Managing Director was not the appointing authority of the petitioner. Even in the matter of services of temporary employee continued for several years, only competent authority can take appropriate action after due enquiry. The rulings cited by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents does not consider the jurisdictional competence of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders have been passed without jurisdiction and therefore void ab-initio. The suspension order was also revoked by order dated 28.11.2007, therefore prayer has become in fructuous, charge sheet dated 4.7.2007. Further, the punishment order dated 28.11.2007 and 29.11.2007 are liable to be quashed with all consequential benefits. ORDER Claim petition is allowed and charge sheet dated 4.7.2007, punishment order dated 28.11.2007 and 29.11.2007 are hereby quashed with all consequential benefits as if such orders including suspension order were never passed by Respondent No.2. The claim petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.