JUDGMENT By the Court.—For determination the common questions are involved in all the writ petitions, therefore, we proposed to decide all the writ petitions by following common order. 2. The petitioner has assailed the jurisdiction of the Managing Director to impose a penalty of dismissal of his service alongwith direction of recovery against losses caused to the State Exchequer. The service condition of the staff of U.P. Warehousing Corporation are governed under the U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulations, 1961 (in short Staff Regulations). 3. In order to administer the corporation the several bodies have been incorporated like Board of Director, Executive Committee and Managing Director. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings the staff regulations holds the field. 4. Regulation 16 provides the provision of imposition of penalties. Section 16 is extracted below : 16. Imposition of penalties.— 1. Any employee committing a breach of regulations of the Corporation or being guilty of negligence, inefficiency or indolence in performance of his duties or knowingly doing anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation or in conflict with its instructions or committing a breach of discipline or being guilty of any other act of misconduct or misdemeanour or being convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to any one or more of the following penalties : a. fine. b. Censure c. postponement or stoppage of increments or promotion, d. reduction to a lower in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale, e. recovery from pay, security deposit or otherwise of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee, f. removal, g. dismissal,(Akhtar Husain Khan, J.) (Shri Narayan Shukla, J.) provided that the penalty of fine shall be imposed on employees of class III only. 2. The power to impose a penalty under sub-para (1) shall be exercised. (i) In the case of class-I employees other than the Managing Director, in respect of all penalties except the penalty specified in items (b) and (c) of sub-para (1), by the Executive Committee, (ii) In the case of Class II employees in the pay scale of Rs. 2. The power to impose a penalty under sub-para (1) shall be exercised. (i) In the case of class-I employees other than the Managing Director, in respect of all penalties except the penalty specified in items (b) and (c) of sub-para (1), by the Executive Committee, (ii) In the case of Class II employees in the pay scale of Rs. 625-1240 and above in respect of all penalties, and the case of Class I employees referred in clause (i) respect of the penalty specified in items (b) and (c) of sub-para (1) by the Managing Director and in case of class II and III employees below the pay scale of Rs. 625-1240 in respect of all penalties, by the Deputy Managing Director. (iii) In the case of Managing Director, in respect of all penalties, by the Board of Directors in consultation with the Central Warehousing Corporation and with the previous approval of the State Government. (3) No punishment other than that specified in sub-para (1)(a), (1)(b) or (1)(c) shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him an opportunity for tendering an explanation in writing and cross-examining the witnesses against him, if any, and of producing evidence in defence, Provided that punishment to an employee on deputation from the Central Government, a State Government or a Government Institution shall be imposed only in accordance with the procedure and rules laid down in this behalf in his parent service.” 5. The petitioner has been imposed a penalty of dismissal from service as well as recovery from pay. These penalties are covered under Clause e and g of Regulation 16(1) of the Staff Regulations. Sub-section 2 provides that the power to impose a penalty under sub-para (1) shall be exercised. (i) In the case of Class-I employee other than Managing Director, in respect of all penalties except the penalty specified in items (b) and (c) of sub-para (1), by the Executive Committee. 6. The petitioner had been working as Class-I employee and since the penalties imposed upon him are governed under the purview of clause e and g that is different to item b and c. the power to impose impugned penalties is vested with the Executive Committee, whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation. 7. To justify the action of the Managing Director Mr. 7. To justify the action of the Managing Director Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the corporation has submitted that under Section 20 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 the general superintendence and management of the affairs of a State Warehousing Corporation has been vested in a board of directors and further under sub-clause 3 of Section 20 it is provided that Managing Director shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as the board of directors or the State Warehousing Corporation may entrust or delegate to him. He contended that in exercise of power provided under the aforesaid clause the Managing Director has exercised the power of Executive Committee to impose punishments. He has made an effort to strengthen the action taken by the Managing Director with the resolution of the Board of Directors adopted on 17 November 2014, whereby the Board of Directors authorised the Managing Director to exercise the power of Executive Committee with the approval of the Chairman of the Board of Directors in the matter of a disciplinary proceedings. He further contented that since the Board of Directors through the resolution had delegated the power of Executive Committee to the Managing Directors to take decision in the matter of disciplinary proceedings, therefore the Managing Director took a decision impugned which cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 8. Under Section 25 of the Act the functions of the Executive Committee has been described. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 provides that there shall be an Executive Committee of a State Warehousing Corporation which shall consists of- a. the Chairman of the board of directors; b. the managing director; and c. three other directors chosen in the prescribed manner, of whom one shall be director referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 20. 2. The Chairman of the board of directors shall be the Chairman of the Executive Committee. 3. Subject to any general of special directions as the board of directors may, from time to time, give, the Executive Committee shall be competent to deal with any matter within the competence of the State Warehousing Corporation. 9. Under Sub-section 3 the Executive Committee had been made competent to deal with any matter within the competence of the corporation subject to any general or special directions of the board of directors. 10. 9. Under Sub-section 3 the Executive Committee had been made competent to deal with any matter within the competence of the corporation subject to any general or special directions of the board of directors. 10. A bare perusal of the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on 17.11.2014 reveals that the decision taken by the Board of Directors does not come within the purview of any such direction as has been provided under Clause 3 of Section 25. The Board of Directors through its resolution had not issued any direction to the Executive Committee with regard to its function rather it had taken its power and assigned to the Managing Director to exercise it. Whereas this administrative power has been assigned to the Executive Committee under Regulation 16 of the Staff Regulations which have been framed by the Warehousing Corporation in exercise of power provided under Section 42 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962. 11. Thus it is obvious that this regulations receives the statutory strength and the power provided under these statutory regulations cannot be taken away by way of any executive decision. Under the provisions of the Warehousing Corporation Act, we do not find any provision which permits the delegation of power of the Executive Committee to different authority. The resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on 17.11.2014 is the only defence of the respondent to justify the action of the Managing Director. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that once the statutory provision prescribes the particular power by the particular authority that has to be exercised accordingly, more so that cannot be abridged by any such decision as has been taken through resolution dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Board of Directors. 13. Therefore, in conclusion, we are of the view that Managing Director of the Corporation has exceeded its jurisdiction to impose a penalty of dismissal as well as on issuing direction to recover the amount indicated in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the orders impugned suffer from jurisdiction, therefore those are hereby quashed. Since we have interfered in the orders impugned only on the ground of jurisdiction, it is appropriate to observe for the competent authority which is the Executive Committee of the Corporation to exercise its power to pass a fresh order in the matter. 14. Subject to aforesaid observations the writ petition stands allowed.