IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6781 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 24, 2010 Sh. Jagdish Chand Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) There is no dispute that disciplinary proceedings were initiated and order of penalty imposed by Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Hamirpur and the Managing Director, H.R.T.C. Shimla respectively. This is evident from Office Order dated 2.12.1998 (Annexure A-4) and Memorandum dated 29.1.2000 (Annexure A-7). 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for being negligent and not complying with the directions issued by the superior authorities. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. 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 competent to make appointment Nature of the penalty in relation of rule 11 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965. Authority competent of impose the penalty. Appellate authority 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ‘E’ CLASS-III POSTS: (First Part) 1.Superintendent G-II 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 General Manager (i) to (iv) (v) to (ix) Div. Manager General Manager General Manager Managing Director 4. There is no dispute that petitioner was serving as a Head Mechanic and the penalty imposed is major. Now the impugned order of penalty was passed by the Managing Director who himself is the appellate authority. The disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated for the reason that they were initiated by the authority not 3 competent to do so and also for the reason that the order of penalty stands passed by the appellate authority. 5. The Apex Court in Surjit Ghosh versus Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others, (1995) 2 SCC 474 and Electronics Corporation of India versus G. Muralidhar, (2001) 10 SCC 43 in identical circumstances quashed the order whereby penalty was imposed by the appellate authority. 6. The decision relied upon by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents in Government of Andhra Pradesh and another versus N. Ramanaiah, (2009) 7 SCC 165 is not relevant for the simple reason that the facts in issue were absolutely different. The Apex Court was dealing with Rule 14(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 which is not para-materia with Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or the Regulations in questions. 7. Hence the petition needs to be allowed and consequently the impugned order dated 29.1.2000 (Annexure A-7) is quashed. Petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 24, 2010 (PK)