IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22-1-2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.23291 of 2007 K.Jayakumar .. Petitioner vs 1.The Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services and Director State Training Centre (Full Additional Charge) State Training Centre Tamilnadu Fire & Rescue Services Department Tambaram, Chennai 47. 2.V.Mathurapandian The Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services and Director State Training Centre(Full Additional Charge) State Training Centre Tamilnadu Fire & Rescue Services Department Tambaram, Chennai 47. 3.Priya Ravichandran Divisional Fire Officer & Deputy Director (Training) Tamilnadu Fire & Rescue Services Tambaram, Chennai 47. 4.Parthiban Divisional Fire Officer & Teller Engineer Tamilnadu Fire & Rescue Services Department Tambaram, Chennai 47. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Proceedings No.1277/Aa/07 dated 23.6.2007 and quashing the same and further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service and monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Venkatramani Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Special Government Pleader for R1 RR2 to 4 given up ORDER The petitioner who was working as a Station Fire Officer in the Fire and Rescue Services Department, was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by the first respondent Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services and Director State Training Centre (Full Additional Charge). It was against the said order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Director who is the appellate authority, on 12.11.2003. Admittedly, that appeal is still pending before the appellate authority. While so, the first respondent has issued a memo on 6.6.2007, to the petitioner on the basis that the punishment awarded by him to the petitioner as stated above, is not proportionate to the charge, for which the petitioner has given a reply, and ultimately under the impugned order, the first respondent holding the charge of the Director State Training Centre which is certainly below the cadre of the appellate authority namely the Director, has passed the impugned order on 23.6.2007, dismissing the petitioner from service. 2.The said order is challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the first respondent being the authority who has passed the original order of punishment, has no jurisdiction to vary the order especially when the appeal is pending before the appellate authority. It is the appellate authority which has to decide the issue as the higher authority in the hierarchy and therefore, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, is without jurisdiction. 3.The learned Special Government Pleader has filed the rank wise details in the department as extracted below: "TAMIL NADU FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES DEPARTMENT RANK WISE DETAILS DIRECTOR ! JOINT DIRECTOR (TRAINING  RESCUE OPERATIONS) ! DEPUTY DIRECTORS ! ! ! !---1.NORTHERN REGION ! 2.NORTH WESTERN REGION ! 3.CENTRAL REGION ! 4.WESTERN REGION ! 5.SOUTHERN REGION ! DIVISIONAL OFFICERS (EACH DISTRICT HEAD QUARTERS) (EXCEPT CHENNAI) (FOUR DIVISIOIN FOR CHENNAI DISTRICT ONLY) ! !-----1.NORTH CHENNAI ! 2.SOUTH CHENNAI ! 3.CENTRL CHENNAI ! 4.CHENNAI SUB URBAN ! ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICERS ! STATIONS OFFICERS ! STATION OFFICERS (TRANSPORT) ! ASSISTANT STATIION OFFICERS ! LEADING FIREMAN ! DRIVER CUM MECHANIC ! FIREMAN DRIVER ! FIREMAN" 4.The above chart shows that the Director who is the appellate authority, is the First Officer in the higher cadre followed by the post of Joint Director which includes the Director Training & Rescue Operations namely the first respondent. Thereafter, the Deputy Directors, Divisional Officers, etc., follow. On the admitted position of the hierarchy of the Officers in the department, once against the order of the first respondent, an appeal is pending, certainly it is not open to the first respondent to revise its own orders, and on the basis of want of jurisdiction, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5.On a reference made, the relevant file is produced by the learned Special Government Pleader, which shows that the appellate authority based on the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 12.11.2003, wanted the first respondent to furnish certain particulars. Instead of furnishing the particulars as required by the appellate authority, the first respondent has straight-away passed the impugned order of punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Therefore, on the ground of want of jurisdiction, the impugned order of the first respondent stands set aside with liberty to the Director of Fire and Rescue Services Department before whom the appeal dated 12.11.2003 filed by the petitioner against the original order of the first respondent dated 13.10.2003, is pending, to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. In any event, the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 22-1-2011 Index: yes Internet: yes Note to Office: Issue on 28.1.2011 B/o kh PA to PJMJ nsv To: 1.The Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services and Director State Training Centre (Full Additional Charge) State Training Centre Tamilnadu Fire & Rescue Services Department Tambaram, Chennai 47. 2.The Special Government Pleader High Court, Madras. P.JYOTHIMANI, J. nsv W.P.No.23291 of 2007 Dt: 22-1-2011