1. Removal from service of a conductor for failure to issue tickets — Challenge to the jurisdiction of the initiating authority under service regulations. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 545
1997(3) Supreme 599
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
The Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Shri Kewal Krishan -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2504 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21956 of 1996)
Decided on 21-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : J.S. Attri, Advocate.
For the Respondent : L.N. Rao, Ms. Neelam Kalsi and Vimal Dave, Advocates.
An officer designated as the 'Head of the Office' under statutory regulations is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties, provided the regulations grant such powers to the 'Head of the Office,' irrespective of their specific administrative title.
Headnote:(i) SERVICE LAW-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class III & IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975-Rule 4-Respondent-Conductor found to have not issued tickets to passengers-Enquiry conducted by Assistant Manager-Order of removal from service passed by Divisional Manager-Assistant Manager was designated under the statutory rules as Head of Office-Action initiated by him for disciplinary proceedings was within parameters of law-Tribunal wrongly held Assistant Manager had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 3 & 4)
(ii) CCC (CC & A) Rules, 1965-Rule 13(2)-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class III & IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975-CCS (CC & A) Rules stood replaced by the Regulations of the Corporation by necessary implication-Head of the office, Assistant Manager was competent authority to appoint and equally to impose penalty. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the authority competent to impose minor penalties can initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties and whether the matter warrants remission to the Tribunal. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. The designated Head of Office, as the appointing authority, is competent to initiate proceedings, and the Tribunal's order did not warrant remission. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 )
4. Where specific service regulations replace general rules, the authority designated as the appointing authority is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the Tribunal set aside — Suit dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Can an officer empowered to impose minor penalties initiate proceedings for major penalties?
Yes, under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, a subordinate officer empowered to impose minor penalties is entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties, although the final order must be passed by the competent authority. (Para 6 )
7. What is the effect of specific Corporation Regulations on the application of general CCS (CC&A) Rules?
Specific Regulations of the Corporation replace the general CCS (CC&A) Rules. Consequently, the authority designated as the appointing authority under the Regulations is the competent authority to impose penalties and initiate proceedings. (Para 6 )
8. Does the designation of an officer as Head of Office grant them the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings?
Yes, if the statutory rules or schedules designate the Head of Office as the appointing and penalty-imposing authority, that officer is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla made on August 12, 1996 in TA No. 755/86. The respondent-conductor was found to have not issued the tickets to the passengers. As a result, an enquiry was conducted on an initiation by the head of the office, one Mr. K.N. Uppal, Assistant Manager. The enquiry report was submitted to the Divisional Manager who accepted the report and removed the respondent from service. The respondent filed a civil suit which was dismissed by the trial Court. When the appeal was pending, the Tribunal came to be constituted. Accordingly, the appeal was transmitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal 2504, in the impugned order, has held that the Assistant Manager has no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent and, therefore, the entire action taken is vitiated by manifest error of law. Accordingly, it quashed the order of dismissal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. It is seen that the statutory power has been exercised by the Corporation exercising power under Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class III & IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 whereunder in Rule 4 , the amendment to the Regulation No. 4 was made, thus :
"The Schedule of power of appointment, discipline and suspension etc. which is appended as Annexure B to these Regulations should be substituted with the revised annexure B appended to this officer order."
4. The revised Annexure B indicates that in respect of Serial No. 58 relating to conductors, authority competent to make appointment is the Head of the Office. The penalties in relation to Rule 11 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules are as mentioned in items (i) to (ix). The authority competent to impose the penalty is the Head of the Office. The appellate authority is the Assistant General Manager, the C.A.O. or D.M. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. By proceedings dated June 29, 1978 in exercise of the power under special Serial No. 77 of the financial powers of the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, Mr. K.N. Uppal was declared as Head of the Office. Thus, K.N. Uppal though Assistant Manager, was designated under the statutory rules as Head of the Office in terms of Annexure B . As a consequence, action initiated by him for the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent is within the parameters of law.
5. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that under Rule 13(2) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 which was adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government, contemplates that a disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (ix) of Rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties. Therein the competent authority to initiate proceedings is the Divisional Manager and, therefore, the action initiated by the Assistant Manager is without authority of law. We find no force in the contention.
6. What Rule 13(2) contemplates is that a subordinate officer who is empowered to impose minor penalty is also entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties. Of course, the order could be passed by the competent authority after the enquiry was conducted and matter was placed before them. In view of the Regulations of the Corporation read above, by necessary implication, the CCS (CC&A) Rules stands replaced by the Regulations referred to hereinbefore. As a result, the Head of Office, namely, the Assistant Manager is the competent authority to appoint. Once he is the competent authority to appoint, he is equally, in relevant col. 5, i
