LexTHE HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR. versus SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
THE HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANR.
v.
SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN
MARCH 21, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.
Se1Vice Law :
C
Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class III & IV SeNices
(Recrnitment, Promotion and ce1tain Conditions of Se1vice) Regulation 1975.
Regulation 4-Disciplinary proceedings-Authority competent to in-
itiate-Conductor subjected to disciplinary proceeding~Assistant Manager,
being Head of Office initiated the proceedings-lnqui1y repolt submitted to
D Divisional Manager who accepted the report and removed the delinquent from
se1vice---Tribunal holding that Assistant Manager had no jurisdiction to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings-Held, Assistant Ma11ager having been
designated as Head of the Office, action initiated by him for disciplinary
proceedings against the delinquent is within the parameters of law-Head of
Office being competent authority to appoint, is competent authority to impose
E the penalty-In view of the Regulations of the Corporation, by necessary
implication, CCS (CC & A) Rules stand replaced by the Regulations.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2504 of
1997.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.96 of the Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No. 755 of 1986
J.S. Attri for the Appellants.
G
L.N. Rao, Ms. Neelam Kalsi and Vimal Dave for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of
H the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla made on August
324
·-{
<
I
--
HIMACHAL RD. TPT. CORPN. v. KEWAL KRISHAN
325
12, 1996 in TA No. 755/86. The respondent-conductor was found to have A
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 to 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 B
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, was held that the Assistant Manager has no jurisdic-
tion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent and, there-
fore, the entire action taken is vitiated by manifest error of law.
Accordingly, it quashed the order of dis1!1issal. Thus, this appeal by special C
leave.
~.
It is seen that the statutory power1 has been exercise by the Corpora-
tion exercising power under Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class
III & IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of D
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 suspen-
sion etc. which is appended as Annexure 'B' to these Regulations
should be substituted with the revised annexure 'B' appended to E
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 Office. The penalties in relation to Rule 11 of the CCS (CC p
& 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
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 powers
of the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, Mr. K.N. Uppal was G
declared as Head of the Office. Thus, K.N. Uppal though Assistant
Manager, was designated under the statutory rules as Head of the Office
in terms of Annexure 'B'. As a consequence, action initiated by him for the
disciplinary proceedings against the respondent is within the parameters of
~
H
A
B
326
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
Mr. L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, con-
tends that under Rule 13(2) of CCS (CC & A) Rule, 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 clauses (i) to (ix) of Rule l1 may institute disciplinary
pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.