http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  of the  Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla made  on August  12,  1996  in  TA  No.  755/86.  The respondent-conductor  was  found  to  have  not  issued  the tickets to  the passengers.  As a  result,  an  enquiry  was conducted on  an initiation  by the  head of the office, one Mr. K.N.  Uppal: Assistant  Manager. The  enquiry report was submitted by  the Divisional Manager who accepted the report and removed  the respondent  from  service.  The  respondent filed a  civil suit  which was dismissed by the trial Court. When the  appeal  was  pending,  the  Tribunal  came  to  be constituted. Accordingly,  the appeal was transmitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has held that the  Assistant  Manager  has  no  jurisdiction  to  initiate disciplinary  proceedings   against  the   delinquent   and, therefore, the  entire action  taken is vitiated by manifest error  of  law.    Accordingly,  it  quashed  the  order  of dismissal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      It is  seen that the statutory power has been exercised by the  Corporation exercising  power  under  Himachal  Road Transport   Corporation    (Class   III   &   IV)   Services (Recruitment, Promotion  and Certain  Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 whereunder in Rule 4, the amendment to the Regulation No. 4 was made, thus:      "The   Schedule    of   powers   of      appointment,     discipline     and      suspension etc.  Which is  appended      as   Annexure    ’B’    to    these      Regulations should  be  substituted      with  the   revised  Annexure   ’B’      appended to this officer order."      The revised  Annexure ’B’  indicates that in respect of Serial No. 58 relating to conductors, authority competent to make appointment  is the  Head of the Officer. The penalties in relation  to Rule 11 of CCS (CC&A) Rules are as mentioned in items  (i) to (ix). The authority competent to impose the penalty is  the Head of the Officer. The appellate authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

is  the  Assistant  General  Manager,  the  C.A.O.  or  D.M. Himachal pradesh  Road Transport Corporation. By proceedings dated June  29, 1978  in exercise of the power under special Serial No. 77 of the financial power of the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation,  Mr. K.N. Uppal was declared manager, was designated  under the  statutory rules  as Head  of  the Officer is  terms of  Annexure ’B’.  As consequence,  action initiated by  him for  the disciplinary  proceedings against the respondent is within the parameters of law.      Mr.  L.N.   Rao,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the respondent, contends  that under  Rule 13(2)  of SCC  (CC&A) Rules, 1965  which  was  adopted  by  the  Himachal  Pradesh Government,  contemplates   that  a  disciplinary  authority competent under  these rules  to impose any of the penalties specified in  clause (i)  to (ix)  of Rule  11 may institute disciplinary proceedings  against any Government servant for the imposition  to any  of the penalties specified in clause (v)  to   (ix)  of   Rule  11   notwithstanding  that   such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any  of the  latter penalties.  Therein the competent authority to  initiate proceedings is the Divisional Manager and,  therefore,  the  action  initiated  by  the  Assistant Manager is without authority of law. We find no force in the contention.      What Rule  13(2) contemplates  is  that  a  subordinate officer who  is empowered  to impose  minor penalty  is also entitled to  initiate  disciplinary  proceedings  for  major penalties. Of  course, the  order could  be  passed  by  the competent authority  after the  enquiry  was  conducted  and matter was placed before them. In view of the Regulations of the Corporation  read above,  by necessary  implication, the CCS (CC&A) Rules stands replaced by the Regulations referred to hereinbefore.  As a  results, the Head of Officer, namely the Assistant Manager is the competent authority to appoint. Once he  is  the  competent  authority  to  appoint,  he  is equally,   in relevant col. 5, is the competent authority to impose the penalty. Instead of himself imposing the penalty, he placed  the matter  before  the  Divisional  Manager  who himself imposed the major penalty of removal form service.      It is  next contended  by Mr.  L.N. Rao that though the respondent had  raised several  contentions in his pleadings in the  trial Court,  the Tribunal  was required  to go into them. Therefore, he requested for remission of the matter to the Tribunal  for disposal  of other  points. The Tribunal’s order does  not indicate  that the  counsel had  pressed all these contentions.  It has  restricted its  consideration on the jurisdictional issue.      In that  view of  the matter,  we do not think that the order passed  by the  Tribunal warrants  remittance  of  the matter to the Tribunal.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the Tribunal stands  set aside.  The suit  stands dismissed. No. costs.