UMESH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, has questioned the legality of the notice issued by the Regional Manager of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Region, under Regulation 35 (2) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, ('the Regulations' for short), proposing to enhance the penalty.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner is a Conductor in the service of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on certain charges by the Disciplinary Authority. An order dated 10-11-1984 was made by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a fine of Rs. 25/- and a punitive suspension for 20 days. (Vide: Annexure 'C'). By notice dated 7.1.1985 (Annexure 'D'), the Regional Manager, who is the Appellate Authority, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the order made by the Disciplinary Authority should not be revised. Questioning the legality of the said notice, the petitioner has presented this petition.

(3.) Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged the following contentions: (i) The order imposing the penalty was served on the petitioner by registered post on 12-1-1985 as required under Regulation 36 of the Regulations. The petitioner had 45 days time for preferring an appeal from the said date in view of Regulation 32 of the Regulations. In view of Regulation 35(2) of the Regulations, no proceeding for revision could be commenced until after the expiry of the period of limitation fixed for the appeal. As the petitioner bad 45 days time to prefer appeal from 12-1-1985, the impugned notice issued on 7-1-1985 was without jurisdiction. (ii) As under proviso to Regulation 35(1) of the Regulations, no order imposing any penalty could be made without notice to the employee concerned, it was obligatory on the part of the Revisional Authority to have specified the penalty which he proposed to impose substituting a lower penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. As no higher penalty was proposed to be inflicted on the petitioner, the impugned notice was contrary to Regulation 35 of the Regulations.