K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"i) quash the order of punishment dated 9/12/93 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 28/4/94 passed by respondent No. 2; ii) call upon the respondents to accept the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement as was done earlier in order to deliver the cheque date 31/12/93 and consequently direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner his dues as per the scheme dated 3/3/1993; iii) call upon the respondents not to give effect to the order of punishment dated 9/12/1993 and 28/4/94; by issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate wit, rule, order or direction. "

( 2 ) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be narrated in the following terms. The petitioner joined service of the Delhi Transport Corporation as an Assistant Fitter in 1962. In 1963 he was promoted as Assistant Store Keeper. In the year 1978 he was promoted as Store Keeper. On 30/5/1991 the petitioner was promoted as Chief Store Keeper. On 22/5/1992 the Delhi Transport Corporation passed an order declaring his probation. On 17/7/1992 a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner. On 29/10/1993 a show cause notice was issued proposing to impose punishment of withholding stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Pursuant to the scheme of voluntary retirement framed by the Delhi Transport Corporation in March 1993, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement in December 1993. On 9/12/1993 the punishment was imposed as proposed in the show cause notice dated 29/10/1993 :-

"the undersigned has carefully considered the representation dated 1/12/93 made by Shri S. S. Bhatia Chief Store Keeper, T. No. 1249 in reply to the show cause No. No. CWS-2/dc/93/413 dated 29/10/93 which has not been considered satisfactory. Therefore, the following punishment is confirmed: "stoppage of 2 due next increment with cumulative effect" The subsistence allowance already paid during the period of suspension, has been considered adequate. If you wish to submit any appeal on the above punishment, the same may be made within 30 days to the Deputy Chief General Manager (Tech) Central Workshop-2. "

( 3 ) THE Appellate Authority, Sr. Manager (Purchase) set aside the order of disciplinary authority and issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the punishment of bringing his basic pay to the initial stage should not be imposed. The petitioner his explanation. On 28/4/1994 that order was imposed. The petitioner has filed the writ petition claiming the relief mentioned above. According to the petitioner, the Appellate Authority, Sr. Manager (Purchase) has no power to issue the show cause notice on 27/4/1994 and pass the order and enhance the punishment. The petitioner has also claimed that his voluntary retirement should have been considered and he must have been relieved as per the request made by him in the application for voluntary retirement.

( 4 ) THE stand taken by the Delhi Transport Corporation is that as per the rules the Appellate Authority, Sr. Manager (Purchase) has power to enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority had violated the principles of natural justice by giving notice to the petitioner. The punishment was enhanced on the ground that the view taken by the disciplinary authority was not correct and appropriate punishment had not been imposed by the disciplinary authority.

( 5 ) REGARDING the claim for voluntary retirement, it is stated by the Delhi Transport Corporation that the petitioner cannot claim voluntary retirement as a matter of right.

( 6 ) TWO questions arise for consideration; (1) whether the Sr. Manager (Purchase) had the power to enhance the punishment; and (2) whether the petitioner would be entitled to get the voluntary retirement, as claimed by him before the Delhi Transport Corporation.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the Delhi Transport Corporation Mr. S. K. Luthra su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document