IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA LORE DATED THIS ThE 4Th OW OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE ThE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICF G.PATRI BASAVANA GOUD WIN P 1ITION NUMBER 12055 OF 1990 0flefloneeennnnanann Between: 5 r1. B.Aboobakar son of Bthu ICuriti aged about 32 years, Conductor, GC No.690, Mangalore Depot, Karnatak. State Road Transport Corporation, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada Oistrict, and residing at (stay. village & Post B.lthangadi Tq., Dakehina Kernale —Petitioner (By 4i K. sbbarao, Adcate) And: . The Karnataka State Read Transport corporation, represented by the Managing Director, Central Offices, Kenga,l Henumantl-eiah Road, ciangalore 560 027 2. The Regional Manager Karnataka State Road Trawçort “orporation, Mysore Region, banniman tap Road, Mysore. 3. The Divisional Contruller Içarnataka State Road Transoort corporation, Mangalore Division Mangalore, Dskshina Krnada (by Wi L. tiovindaraj, An. for R1 arid R—2 R 0 3 served) Thib writ pet tion is ft ad under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 25-5—1988 (Annezure—fi) in No .KST/MNC/DFL/ 319/88/703/88 paced by tie third respondent; and the order dated 31—1—1990 at Annaxure C ii No. KST:M5sRP’ FL:03:1367:89—90, and to grant consaquantie benefits. This writ petition coming on for hearing this day the Court made the following: ORDER S. I ORDER Petitioner is working as conductor in the respondents KSITC. On proof of the charge th.t en 6a2e198 when his bus plying from Nengalore to Bombay wee checked, it was found that he had failed to issue tickets to two passengers, ‘the Disciplinary Rut 4 hority, namely the Divisional Controller imposed a punishment of withholding of the ensuing increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. While the petitioner rkman left the matter at that, the revisional authority suo motu took up the matter and directed an enquiry for the first time to be conducted into the charge, and, for that purpose,appointed the Traffic tlanmger f Hangalore Division as the Enquirying Authority. The Enquirying Autnority held the enquiry for the first time and submitted a report, upon which the revislanal autharity,purpating to act under Regulation 35 of the Karnataa State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (‘Regulations’ for short), modified the above said punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and,in its place imposed the penalty of rethicing the pay of the petitioner by two incremental stages with cumulative effect operating for his entire e3. service, which is nov coiled in cpsestion in this writ petition under rticle 226 of the Constitution. 2. Ms. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondents KSflC urges that by virtue of Regula’ion 19(2’ teed i4th Notve4 to tie Schedule to the Regulations, even the revisional authority can act as discipliwry authority and as such ,the revisional authority’s imposition of the seid penelty cannot be successfully chellenged. Ns.Suaa, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointit’out thet the said regulation Slav * 19(2) read with Note—4 to the schedule 1 eeraits even the .n&anas4eaqa.r/Regional Manager to act as disciplinary wthority ‘lt pre supposs that,for the misc.nductdhere the lover functionary i.e. Divisional Controller has not yet initiated any action as disciplinary authority, then, the Regional Manager can act as disciplinary authority. In respect of a part ul er aiscnduct of an official, nly one aithority o act aa disciplinary authority. Normally, ir th ?restnt case, it is the ‘ via a is to act as disciplinary authority. By virtue of Regulation 19(2) read with Note—4 to th• zchedu a to t c Regula ions, the Regional Mnagr al a at a disciplinary authority. But that is oniy If the DIvisional Controller his at . cised his power as disciplinary authority for a part.icu1iir rri. conduct, Where the Divisional Controller has already acted as diaclaiirery authorIty and has imposed certain punishment, it is not open to the Regional Marger to once aqai ct sa disciplipary authority and punish the petitioner for the same misconduct. It will lead to an anomalous situation if--r 4ke authority who is permitted to act as disciplinary attrty)qos or initiating proceedings as disciplinary authority and punishes the officials for the same m1s conduct. It may even lead to an official being punished for the same miscunduct more than once by more than one disciplinary authority. 3. Ms. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent KSRTC,next urges that ,under Regulation 35(1)(ili(c of Ur Regulations, the Regional Manager, while sitting as a revisional authority, can remit the case either to the authority whiCh made the original order ie. the DIVISIanBI 0 ontroller or to any other —5— authority, in the instant case to the Traffic Manager 5 directing such authority to mica enquiry as has been done by the Regional Manager in this case, wherein halts directed the Traffic Manager of Mangalore Division to hiad an ena”iry. Ti true, the revisional authority could so order an enquiry. But what is contemplat d thenan is further enqu4gy ‘!2& ! ¶c!’L!!?34u• In fact, the said Regulation 35(1)(iii)(c) refers to the enquiry to be so ordered as further enquiry and not a fresh eniuiry. It is to be understood in this way. There is an enquiry already held on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has impised certain punishment. The Revlsional Authorit> ray fel that a further enquiry may be needed. It is in that event that the matter can be r aitted under the above said clquse, either to the vary authority ihich had held the earlier enquir or to any other authority, solely for the ourpose of conducting further enquiry. What h’n been done now by the revisional authority isalto9ether a fresh enquiry. The enquiry ordered by the revisional authority and held in pursuance of thtffiuder by tie t raffic ‘arager, 4 angalor nivision was not a further enquiry i.e. in continuation of whet had been held earlier, but totally a I-. fresh enquiry because no enquiry had earlier been held, the initial unlshment by the Divisional Controller/Dlsciplinary Authority having been imposed without eruiry because it was a minor punishment In such circumstances the revisional authority could not have ordered for fresh enquiry far the first time under Regulation 35(1)(iii)(cL The inpugned punish ment imposed by Ue revisional autorlty based upon such an enquiry report, therefore, cannot be legally sustained. 4, PetItion allowed. The order of the Regional Miager (Revisional Authority) dated 31—1—19O at Annexure—G is quashed,and he order of the disciplInary authority (Divisional Controller) dated 25—5—1988 at Annexure—8 is held to hold the field. fJ / JUDGE