The facts so far as they are relevant for this appeal may be briefly set out.
Of companyrse, this order had been preceded by a regular enquiry after giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer to be heard.
Thereafter, the respondent brought a suit challenging the validity of the order of dismissal and for a declaration that he is deemed to have companytinued in service despite the dismissal.
This was followed by a departmental disciplinary enquiry which resulted in his dismissal by the Deputy Commissioner on October 25, 1962.
He succeeded in the trial Court and the appeals by the Corporation were all dismissed.
The main ground on which the order of dismissal was set aside was that the appointing authority was the Commissioner while the dismissing authority was the Deputy Commissioner.
After the dismissal order by the Deputy Commissioner, an appeal was carried to the Commissioner by the respondent but it proved fruitless because the Commissioner after examining the merits of the matter companycurred in the companyclusion regarding the guilt and punishment.
In 1961, he was suspended for alleged delinquency.
The respondent was a Sewer Inspector appointed in 1958 by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation.
R. Krishna Iyer, J The appellant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has by special leave companye up in appeal attacking the decree of the High Court which affirmed the companycurrent judgments of the Courts below declaring the order of dismissal of the respondent void.
