(1.) The petitioners in these two cases are working as conductors in the Punjab Roadways. They are aggrieved by the show cause notices issued to them. Learned counsel has referred to the factual position in Civil Writ Petition No. 15650 of 1997. It may be briefly noticed :
(2.) On January 28, 1996 the bus on which the petitioner was posted was checked. It was found that the petitioner had not issued tickets to 21-1/2 passengers out of a total of 25-1/2 passengers. He had in fact collected bus fare from these passengers. He was thus accused of embezzling an amount of Rs. 777/-. A charge sheet was served on the petitioner. An enquiry was held. The petitioner was exonerated. The General Manager who is the punishing authority, let off the petitioner with a penalty of censure. The matter came to the notice of the appellate authority viz the Divisional Manager. On examination of the file he found that Enquiry Officer has not considered the entire evidence and that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was not adequate. Consequently, he issued a notice dated September 26, 1997 to the petitioner. By this notice the petitioner was given on opportunity to show cause as to why his service be not terminated. Alongwith this notice a detailed note running into about 9 pages in which reasons for disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer as well as the punishing authority were recorded was also given to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is alleged that under rule 21(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, the appellate authority does not have the jurisdiction to issue a suo-motu notice for enhancement of the penalty.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Divisional Manager. It is maintained that in accordance with provisions of the rules the Divisional Manager is competent to review the order passed by the General Manager.