A. K. Sikri, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) RULE. Short question which arises in this petition relates to the power of the Depot Manger in refusing/modifying the order of punishment passed earlier. The petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 29. 9. 1997 containing certain allegations. Inquiry was held against the petitioner. After the receipt of the inquiry report, Depot Manager of GTK Deport issued show cause notice dated 6. 3. 1998 proposing to inflict the punishment of reprimand. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. Ultimately, the punishment of reprimand was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 10. 3. 1998. However after passing this order, communication dated 2. 6. 1998 was issued to the petitioner informing that the order dated 10. 3. 1998 imposing punishment of reprimand was set aside and the case was being reopened for further action. Thereafter show cause notice dated 11. 6. 1998 was issued proposing the following punishment reprimand + deduction of Rs. 6064. 50 in five equal" instalments of Rs. 1212. 90 .

( 2 ) PETITIONER submitted his reply on 3. 8. 1998. After considering this reply, impugned order dated 10. 8. 1998 was passed imposing the punishment of reprimand deduction of Rs. 6064. 50 in five equal instalments of Rs. 1212. 90 .

( 3 ) IN this petition, petitioner challenges the powers of the Depot Manager to suo moto cancel the first punishment order and issue the second punishment order. This question is conclusively decided against the respondent in the case of Sh. S. S. Bhatia Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. reported in 1999 (79) DLT 461. The said case related to DTC itself and identical issue was involved. This Court held as under:-

"under the Standing Orders the Appellate Authority can enhance the punishment only if there is an appeal before him. The rules do not provide for exercise of suo moto power to review the order of Disciplinary Authority by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Appellate Authority (Sr. Manager, Purchase) had no power to issue the show cause notice. Consequently, he wpuld not have the power to pass the order dated 28. 4. 1994. Therefore, the order dated 28. 4. 1994 issued by the Senior Manager (Purchase) has to be * set aside and it stands quashed".

( 4 ) RESPONDENT could not show any rules or regulations under which such suo moto powers could be exercised enhancing the punishment after the punishment was imposed earlier. Counsel for the respondent produced copy of the office order No. 24 dated 3. 9. 1980. However the said office order is not relevant and deals with the situation where afterfirst show cause notice proposing the punishment, second show cause notice is issued proposing higher punishment when no action is taken on the basis of first show cause notice. In the instant case after giving first show cause notice punishment had already been imposed and once the punishment is imposed, there is no power with Disciplinary Authority to suo moto reopen the case and impose higher punishment.

( 5 ) NO 6ther point was canvassed. Punishment order dated 10. 8. 1998 is set aside and thp first punishment order dated 10. 3. 1998 impostor the punishment of reprimand is restored.

( 6 ) THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document