Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. Since both the writ petitions involve similar facts and circumstances hence they were connected and heard together and are being decided by the common judgment and order. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 25.11.2002 and 20.12.2002 whereby the opposite party no. 2/District Magistrate, Bahraich had initially stayed the operation of the orders dated 2.11.2002 and subsequently quashed it vide order dated 20.12.2002. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners were working as Lekhpals. They were placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings and in this regard charge sheets were issued. The petitioners by filing reply had participated in the disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry officer after completion of the enquiry had submitted its report in which the petitioners of the writ petition no.472 (SS) of 2003 was not found guilty of the alleged charges whereas the charges levelled against the petitioner of writ petition no.7211(SS) of 2002 were partially proved and minor punishment was awarded. The disciplinary authority i.e. opposite party no. 4/S.D.M., Tehsil Mehsi, District Bahraich vide order dated 2.11.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 472 (S/S) of 2003 and order dated 10.10.2002 in writ petition no. 7211 (SS) of 2002 had reinstated the petitioners in service. The opposite party no. 2/District Magistrate who is the appellate authority of the petitioners, on his own, vide order dated 25.11.2002 had stayed the order of the disciplinary authority and directed the petitioners to remain under suspension. The said order was said to have been passed on some appeal filed by the department. It is further submitted that thereafter the opposite party no. 2 had passed the final order dated 20.12.2002 remanding the matter back to the opposite party no. 4 for passing a fresh order after setting aside the orders dated 10.10.2002 and 2.11.2002. Submission is that no such power vests with the opposite party no. 2 who is the appellate authority of petitioners to have passed the said orders on the alleged appeal filed by the department or even suo moto. 4 for passing a fresh order after setting aside the orders dated 10.10.2002 and 2.11.2002. Submission is that no such power vests with the opposite party no. 2 who is the appellate authority of petitioners to have passed the said orders on the alleged appeal filed by the department or even suo moto. It is submitted that under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 the power to file appeal under Rule 11 has been given to a delinquent Government servant, who has been given liberty to file appeal to the next higher authority challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority. No such power has been given to the department. In absence of any such power the order impugned is patently wrong and illegal. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit tried to justify the impugned orders by submitting that the charges were serious in nature and the disciplinary authority without properly considering the material on record had agreed with the enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner of writ petition no. 472 (SS) of 2003 and had awarded only minor punishment to the petitioner of writ petition no. 7211(S/S) of 2002 which was not proper. As such the department had requested the District Magistrate, Bahraich to consider the entire matter himself and pass appropriate order. The District Magistrate, as such, after considering the records had set aside the order of reinstatement of petitioners and directed opposite party no. 4 who is the disciplinary authority of the petitioners to pass a fresh order giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Submission is that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel. The question involved in the instant writ petitions is whether the opposite party no. 2 who is said to be the appellate authority has the power or jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority reinstating the petitioners, especially when no appeal was filed by the delinquent employees; whether the department had any liberty to approach the appellate authority against the decision of the disciplinary authority. The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 provides the procedure for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against delinquent Government employees. The U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1999 provides the procedure for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against delinquent Government employees. Under Rule 11 of Rules 1999 the power and liberty has been given only to the Government servant to file the appeal to the next higher authority against an order passed by the disciplinary authority. No such liberty has been given to the department or State Government, meaning thereby that in case an delinquent Government servant is aggrieved by the decision of the disciplinary authority, he is entitled to file appeal under Rule 11 of Rules 1999 and not the department or State Government. In the present cases, no such appeal was filed by the petitioners who are said to be the delinquent employees. The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show any other regulation or order under which the department or the Government is entitled to challenge the decision of the disciplinary authority before any higher forum, may be the appellate authority. In the absence of any such rule, I am of the considered opinion that opposite party no. 2 has no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority. The orders impugned are, therefore bad in the eye of law. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.11.2002 and 20.12.2002 passed by the opposite party nos. 3 and 2 respectively, are hereby quashed. Consequences shall follow. _____________