IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6782 of 2008 Date of Decision : August 24, 2010 Sh. Jagdish Chand Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others 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) 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.” 2. Annexure A-7 is the order passed by the Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Hamirpur imposing minor penalty. 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 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 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. 5. It is a settled proposition of law that an authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority cannot take disciplinary action as has 3 been held by 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. 6. 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. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 24, 2010 (PK)