IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1009 OF 2010 (S/S) Dharamveer Singh ………Petitioner. Versus Uttarakhand Transport Corporation and others. …..Respondents. Present: Mr. A.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Sri A.K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, who has passed the impugned order dated 23.7.2010 which is Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The impugned order dated 23.7.2010 has been passed by the Managing Director of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation under purported exercise of power under Regulation 69A of U.P. Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service, Regulation, 1981 (from hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The petitioner was an employee of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. He faced disciplinary proceeding and consequently, he was awarded a minor punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.9.2007. All the same, subsequent to this, the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation exercising power under Regulation 69A of the Regulation has awarded major punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner. Regulation 69 A reads as under:- 2 “69.A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations the Chairman or in his absence the Managing Director of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport may, on its own motion, or otherwise, call for the record of any case relating to dismissal, removal and reduction 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 other 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.” Evidently, such powers can only be exercised in a case, which is relating to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Similar controversy has been decided by this Court on 6.1.2011 in Writ Petition No. 1140 of 2009 (S/S) Rajeev Agarwal vs. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation Ltd. and others. This Court was of the view that recourse 3 to Regulation 69A of the Regulation can only be taken, where the case is relating to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. In the present case, there is only a minor punishment of stoppage of three annual increments. Regulation 69A does not visualise any such contingency, where even in a case, which may unjustly relate to an offence, where a punishment of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank could have been passed, such powers can be exercised. A bare reading of Regulation 69A shows that the powers in the present case have wrongly been exercised by the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 23.7.2010 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.5.2011 Rathour