Full Judgment Text
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.