/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE GC RHARUKA WRIT PETITION NOl7744/98 BETWEEN: MHMubarak, s/olate Hussain Khap, r/oBNo51O8 Mercara Depot. KSRTC Mangalore Division. PETITIONER (By Sri SJ3 Mukkannappa Adv) AND: 1 The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, She nthinagar K H Road, Bangalore27, 2 The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Mangalore Division. Mangalore. . . RESPONDENTS This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying this Court to quash Annexure-E dt.1O.3.98 passed by R—2. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The petitioner is woi king a a driver in the r€pondentKSRTC He was subjcted to disciplinary proceedings in which enquiring officer submitted his report after recording evidence,to the Disciplinary Authority’. But Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied about the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. we directed holdfresh enquiry under impugned order dated 10.3.98 in the manner directed in I/ 7fl 2 ‘1 The Disciplinary Authority under &ibs impugned order ha aeserted that enquiry officer has not given sufficient opportunity to the management to lead appropriate evidence 1 lot the said purpose the Authority has appointed the Accounts Officer, Mangalore Division, as the enquiry officer. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner has assailed the same by referring to Regulation 23(24) of the Karnataka State Road transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulation,, 1971, which reads as under: “R.gtalation 23(24): The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquirino authority shall thereupon pro eed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of this regulation as far as may be. 3. With reference to the above provision it has been submittbd on behalf of the petitioner that in law Disciplinary Authority could have directed only for further enquiry and not a fresh enquiry. 4. In my opinion since the Disciplinary uthority the management was not given sufficient opportunity to present its case the enquiry officer has now to give appropriate opportunity to the management for leading evidence and also for cross examining the petitioner and his witnesses if any. Counsel for the petitioner states that keeping in view the aforesaid provisions he may not be required to lead any further evidence. In my opinion there cannot he any serious objection to the prayer so made. Therefore, the enquiry officer shall take on record the evidence already led on behalf of the petitioner but has to give opportunity to the management to lead evidence in support TL of the charges and alsoAPermission to cross-examine the petitioner as well as his witnesses, if so desired by the management, 5. Subject to the said observation the writ petition is dismissed sgs/