Sh. Jagdish Chand vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—The petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:

(i) That the impugned order contained in Ann. A-7 dated 20.11.1998 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Annexure A-7 is the order passed by the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Hamirpur imposing minor penalty.

There is no dispute that the respondents have framed Regulations which are known as Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class I-II-III and IV) Service Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service Regulations-1996. The relevant clause of the said Regulations reads as under:

S. No. Category of post Authority Nature of Authority Appellate competent to the penalty competent authority make in relation of impose appointment of Rule 11 the of the penalty. CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ''E'' CLASS-III POSTS: General (i) to (iv) Div. General (First Part) Manager (v) to (ix) Manager Manager 1.Superintendent General Managing G-II Manager Director Personal Assistant. Superintendent (Audit) Superintendent (Stores) Chief Inspector. Foreman. Service Station Inch. Head Mechanic Station Supervisors (Dying Cadre) Tyre Inspectors F.I.P. Calibrators Video/TV Supervisors

There is no dispute that petitioner is a Head Mechanic and minor penalty can be imposed by the Divisional Manager. As per the Regulations the Divisional Manager is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings but in this case the action has been initiated by an authority which is subordinate to the disciplinary authority.

It is a settled proposition of law that an authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority cannot take disciplinary action as has been held by the Apex Court in Surjit Ghosh Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, and others, and 2001 (2) AWC 1293 (SC)

For the aforesaid reasons the petition needs to be allowed. Consequently the impugned order dated 20.11.1998 (Annexure A-7) is quashed. Petition stands disposed of.