HHUTCHE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these several Writ Petitions by the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department impugning the validity of certain orders passed against them by an officer of the Department in disciplinary proceedings instituted against them, certain common points of law arise. Therefore, they have been heard together. The learned counsel on both sides, for the sake of convenient disposal of these cases, addressed us in the first instance on these general points of law and thereafter proceeded to deal with the facts and circumstances peculiar to individual cases. We propose to follow the same method in disposing of these cases.

(2.) The common points fall under two categories : The first of them deals with the competency of the officer who made the orders and the second with the correctness or validity of the orders in the light of the rules and standing orders governing the procedure in respect of disciplinary action.

(3.) The particular officer, whose competency is the subject-matter of challenge on behalf of the petitioners, is one Mr. B. K. Srinivasan functioning as the Deputy General Manager of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department. That challenge is also two-fold. The first aspect of it is an alleged ineligibility personal to him; second aspect of the challenge is one based upon the provisions of the first clause of Article 311 of the Constitution. Mr. Srinivasan was, before the reorganisation of the States, an employee of the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, whereas the petitioners before us were even before the reorganisation the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department. The argument on their behalf is that Mr. Srinivasan continues to retain the status of an employee of a statutory corporation and has not acquired the status of a Civil Servant of the Government or a person employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Mysore. They therefore contend that he has no competency to sit in judgment over the actions of persons who are admittedly servants of the Government. On the infirmity attaching to his orders in the light of Article 311(I) of the Constitution, the argument is that he has in certain cases purported to dismiss or claim the right to dismiss persons who had been appointed by an authority to which Mr. Srinivasan was subordinate.