Holding

The Head of Office, even when an Assistant Manager, is the competent authority to initiate and impose disciplinary penalties under the HRTC Regulations, and the Tribunal’s finding of lack of jurisdiction is a manifest error of law.

Summary

The Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) initiated disciplinary proceedings against conductor Shri Kewal Krishan for failing to issue tickets. The enquiry was started by the Assistant Manager, Mr K.N. Uppal, who had been designated as Head of Office under the HRTC (Class III & IV) Services Regulations, 1975, and the report was acted upon by the Divisional Manager who removed the respondent from service. The Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that the Assistant Manager lacked jurisdiction to commence the proceedings and set aside the dismissal. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined whether the HRTC Regulations superseded the CCS (CC & A) Rules and whether the Head of Office was the competent authority to initiate and impose disciplinary penalties. The Court held that the Assistant Manager, as Head of Office, was indeed the competent authority under the Regulations, rendering the Tribunal’s finding erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s order was set aside, and the respondent’s suit was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Assistant Manager, designated as Head of Office, had jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings under the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class III & IV) Services Regulations, 1975.
Whether the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965, particularly Rule 13(2) and Rule 11, continued to govern disciplinary authority despite the corporation's own regulations.
Whether the Tribunal erred in quashing the dismissal of the respondent on jurisdictional grounds.

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsjurisdictionhead of officeHimachal Road Transport CorporationCCS Rulesspecial leave petitionadministrative lawservice law

Judgment

A THE HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANR.
v.
SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN

MARCH 21, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.

Se1Vice Law :

C Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class III & IV SeNices
(Recrnitment, Promotion and ce1tain Conditions of Se1vice) Regulation 1975.

Regulation 4-Disciplinary proceedings-Authority competent to in-
itiate-Conductor subjected to disciplinary proceeding~Assistant Manager,
being Head of Office initiated the proceedings-lnqui1y repolt submitted to
D Divisional Manager who accepted the report and removed the delinquent from
se1vice---Tribunal holding that Assistant Manager had no jurisdiction to
initiate the disciplinary proceedings-Held, Assistant Ma11ager having been
designated as Head of the Office, action initiated by him for disciplinary
proceedings against the delinquent is within the parameters of law-Head of
Office being competent authority to appoint, is competent authority to impose
E the penalty-In view of the Regulations of the Corporation, by necessary
implication, CCS (CC & A) Rules stand replaced by the Regulations.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2504 of
1997.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 12.8.96 of the Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla in T.A. No. 755 of 1986

J.S. Attri for the Appellants.

L.N. Rao, Ms. Neelam Kalsi and Vimal Dave for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of
H the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Shimla made on August
324
·-{
<
HIMACHAL RD. TPT. CORPN. v. KEWAL KRISHAN 325

12, 1996 in TA No. 755/86. The respondent-conductor was found to have A
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 B
Court. When the appeal was pending, the Tribunal came to be constituted.
Accordingly, the appeal was transmitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in
the impugned order, was held that the Assistant Manager has no jurisdic-
tion to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent and, there-
fore, the entire action taken is vitiated by manifest error of law.
Accordingly, it quashed the order of dis1!1issal. Thus, this appeal by special C
I
--
~.
leave.
1
It is seen that the statutory power has been exercise by the Corpora-
tion exercising power under Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class
III & IV) Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of D
Service) Regulations, 1975 whereunder in Rule 4, the amendment to the
Regulation No. 4 was made, thus :

"The Schedule of Powers of appointment, discipline and suspen-
sion etc. which is appended as Annexure 'B' to these Regulations
should be substituted with the revised annexure 'B' appended to E
this officer order."

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 p
& A) Rules are as mentioned in items (i) to (ix). The authority competent
to impose the penalty is the Head of the Officer. 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 G
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
~ H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A Mr. L.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, con-
tends that under Rule 13(2) of CCS (CC & A) Rule, 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 l1 may institute disciplinary
proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of
B
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
C the contention.

What Rule 13(2) contemplates is that a subordinate officer who is
empowered to impose minor penalty is also entitle lo 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
D 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 as result, the Head of
Office, namely, the Assistant Manager is the competent authority to
appoint. Once he is the competent authority to appointment, he is equally,
E in relevant col. 5, is the competent authority to impose the penalty. Instead
of himself imposing the penalty, he placed the matter before the Divisional
Manager who himself imposed the major penalty of removal from service.

ll is next contcmled by Mr. L.N. Rao that thought the respondent
had raised several contentions in his pleadings in the trial Court, the
F Tribunal was requirement to go into them. Therefore, he requested for
remission of the matter to the Tribunal for disposal of other points. The
Tribunal's orders does not indicate that the counsel had pressed all these
contentions. It has restricted its consideration on the jurisdictional issue.

Jn that view of the matter, we do not think that the order passed by
G
the Tribunal warrants remittance of the matter to the Tribunal.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal stands
set aside. The suit stands dismissed. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.