Minor penalties cannot be imposed without conducting an enquiry or assigning reasons for dispensing with the enquiry, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) The Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction quashing the impugned orders dated 27/7/2011 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1687/10/3585/11 Vide Annexure-C, order dated 27/6/2011 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/2613/10/3053/11 Vide Annexure-F and order dated 31/12/2010 in No.VAKARASA/BHAVI/SHISTU/1688/10/6961/10 Vide Annexure-J, all orders passed by Respondent No.1 and

b) Consequent upon quashing the impugned orders, issue necessary direction to the Respondent to consider the case of petitioner for future promotion and allot appropriate seniority number in the seniority list.

c) Issue any other appropriate Writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case including as to the cost of this Writ Petition in the ends of Justice and Equity.”

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that, on 01.01.1994, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’) as a Conductor. On 13.09.1997, the petitioner, as an in-service candidate, applied to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector and was appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector. Subsequently, on 11.06.2005, the petitioner was promoted as Traffic Inspector and from December 2012, the petitioner started working as Assistant Traffic Superintendent.

3. On 21.10.2010, the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet alleging that he was responsible for cancellation of routes. It is contended that the petitioner submitted his reply dated 01.11.2011 denying the charges. The respondents without conducting any enquiry imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year vide order dated 27.07.2011. Subsequently, on 29.04.11, the respondents issued one more charge sheet against the petitioner alleging insubordination to the orders of the higher officials and failure on his part to keep one spare driver at the Bus Depot on 05.50.2011, the petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations and explaining the real facts. However, respondent once again proceeded to impose minor punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year vide order dated 27.06.2011, also without conducting any enquiry. Similarly, on 21.10.2010, one more charge sheet had been issued by the respondent against the petitioner inter alia alleging that he had failed to prepare a duty chart/rotation and did not sent the same to the concerned Divisional Controller. Though the petitioner submitted a reply dated 02.11.2010 denying the allegations, the respondent, once again, did not conduct any enquiry and imposed minor punishment of postponement of one increment for a period of one year vide order dated 31.12.2010.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 27.07.2011, 27.06.2011 and 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the provisions contained in Regulation 22 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Employees (C & D Regulations), 1971 (for short, ‘the Regulations), it was incumbent upon the respondents either to conduct enquiry or to assign reasons as to why they are dispensing with conducting of enquiry before proceeding to impose minor penalty/punishment against the petitioner. In this context it was submitted that, in the absence of either conducting enquiry or assigning any reason as to why conducting of enquiry was being dispensed with, the impugned orders dated 27.07.2011, 27.06.2011 and 31.12.2010 passed by respondent No.1 imposing minor penalty/punishment are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and law, in particular Rule 22 of the Regulations and the same deserve to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submit that, apart from the fact that there is a delay of three years in approaching th