Statutory right of appeal under service rules cannot be defeated when punishment is imposed by the wrong authority.

Service regulations may permit the Chairman to act on an inquiry report and impose penalty for officers up to the rank of Superintending Engineer, but that power cannot be exercised in a way that extinguishes the employee's statutory appeal or representation. Where the disciplinary punishment is instead imposed by the Board, despite the regulations reserving that route of redress against the Chairman's order, the order is vitiated because the available hierarchical remedy is lost. The governing principle is that a higher authority may not impose punishment if doing so deprives the employee of the appellate safeguard expressly created by the service rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the punishment imposed by the higher authority instead of the competent disciplinary authority was invalid for depriving the employee of the statutory right of appeal and whether the punishment order could be sustained in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The service regulations vested power in the Chairman to deal with the inquiry report and pass final orders in respect of officers up to the rank of Superintending Engineer, and also provided an appeal or representation against the Chairman's order to the Board. The employee, being an Assistant Engineer, fell within that category. The order of punishment was passed by the Board, not by the Chairman, with the result that the employee was deprived of the appellate remedy expressly provided by the regulations. The governing principle is that although a higher authority may in some situations act as the disciplinary authority, such exercise is permissible only if it does not extinguish the statutory right of appeal or revision. Where the appellate authority itself imposes punishment and no further remedial channel survives, the order is vitiated.

Conclusion: The punishment order was invalid for depriving the employee of the statutory right of appeal and the challenge to the punishment failed in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of punishment imposed by a higher or appellate authority is unsustainable where, under the governing service rules, that course destroys the employee's statutory right of appeal or other hierarchical remedy.

---