IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1799 of 2007 (S/S) Gyan Chand S/o Late Shri Siya Ram ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for respondent No.1 and Mr. J.S. Bisht, the learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner on account of some misconduct was punished and by an order dated 13/12/2002, increment was stopped for two years. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Regional General Manager, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Haridwar. The appellate authority enhanced the punishment and passed an order dated 01/11/2007 dismissing the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the provision of Regulations 69-A of the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations of 1981) in which it has been provided under Clause (d), if the penalty is proposed to be enhanced in which case, the employee concerned could be given opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement. For facility, Clause 69-A of the Regulations of 1981 is extracted hereunder:- 2 “”69. A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations the Chairman or in his absence the Managing Director of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation may, on its own motion, or otherwise, call for the record of any case relating to dismissal, removal and reductin in rank decided by any of the authorities subordinate to him in exercise of powers conferred by these Regulations and- (a) confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority or (b) direct that a further enquiry be held in the case; or (c) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by such order; or (d) made such other order in the case as it may deem fit; Provided that if enhancement in the penalty imposed where by any such order, the employee concerned, shall be given opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement; Provided that if enhancement in the penalty imposed whereby any power on its own motion, or otherwise shall not call for the record beyond the period of three months from the date of order in appeal.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice was provided to the petitioner while exercising the order of penalty. Paragraph 8 of the writ petition, in which the provision of Regulations 69-A of the 3 Regulation, 1981 has been quoted, has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. In view of the aforesaid admitted fact that no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate order enhancing the punishment from stoppage of increment to dismissal of the services of the petitioner was wholly illegal and unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 11.05.2010 Shiv