GIRJESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short controversy raised before this Court assailing the impugned order of punishment (removal) dated 29.10.2011 is that Assistant Regional Manager, Shahganj Depot has no jurisdiction or authority to impose punishment upon petitioner since he is not appointing authority of petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, contended that petiti was oner was working as Conductor in Ballia Depot of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and, therefore, Assistant Regional Manager, Ballia Depot was appointing authority who was authorized to pass an order of punishment and not the Assistant Regional Manager, Shahganj Depot. He drew my attention to Rule 9 (ii) of U.P. Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations, 1981") which defines appointing authority and reads as under:

(2.) He also drew my attention to Office Order dated 29.1.1996 whereby the Board of Directors has authorized an Assistant Regional Manager, to act as an appointing authority, in respect to Drivers, Conductors etc. working in a depot. The territorial jurisdiction is specifically provided in aforesaid Office Order which reads as under:

(3.) It is, therefore, contended that Assistant Regional Manager of another depot in which the Driver or Conductor is not attached or working cannot exercise power of appointing authority. He also drew my attention to Regulation 64 (5) Regulations, 1981 providing that power of punishment, i.e. dismissal or removal can be exercised only by appointing authority.