ORDER
G. Patri Basavana Goud, J.
1. On 23-7-1977, when the petitioner was working as Traffic Controller in the 1st respondent K.S.R.T.C. at Kolar Bus Stand, he was alleged to be guilty of misconduct in failing to observe the ticket numbers in the ticket tray properly, that 9 tickets of Rs. 1-05 denomination were found intact and in un-punched condition. He was, therefore, served with an article of charge in that regard to which he submitted a reply denying the charge. The disciplinary authority, however, passed an order holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of misconduct levelled against him. He then proceeded to impose a penalty of reducing the petitioner’s pay by one incremental stage permanently. Petitioner’s apple to the Divisional Manager came to be dismissed. He has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order of the disciplinary authority at Annexure-B and that of the Appellate Authority at Annexure-D.
2. Regulation 18 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (‘Regulations’ for short) lists minor penalties and major penalties. Withholding of increments is a minor penalty as per the said Regulation 18. Regulation 22 of the Regulations lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Sub-regulation (1) inter alia stipulates that no minor penalty under Regulation 18 shall be made except after :-
(a) informing the corporation servant in writing of the proposed action to take against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation 23, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.
3. It is apparent from the wording of the above said Regulation 22 that it is not always necessary for the disciplinary authority to hold a regular enquiry in the manner laid down under Regulation 23 to impose a minor penalty. All that the disciplinary authority has to do to impose one of the penalties specified as minor penalties under Regulation 18 is to inform the delinquent-Corporation servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him, and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, an giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. After taking the said representation into consideration, if the disciplinary authority records a finding on the charge being held to be proved, that would be sufficient compliance with Regulation 22 for imposition of the minor penalty. However, in a given case, having regard to the gravity of the charge or having regard to the necessity of going into truth or otherwise of a fact alleged by the disciplinary authority and disputed by the corporation-servant, the disciplinary authority may feel the necessity of holding an enquiry in accordance with Regulation 23. It is such a situation that is taken care of by clause (b) clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22 in a case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. There is, then, Regulation 23, which has as many as 26 sub-regulations, all dealing with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Thus, even for imposing of a minor penalty in terms of Regulation 22, in a given case, if the disciplinary authority, on application of mind, decides that an enquiry in accordance with the Regulation 23 is necessary, then, such an enquiry has to he held. It is in the light of this legal position that the facts of the present case are to be looked into. Annexure-A is the Article of Charge dated 26-12-1981 serve on the petitioner. The first paragraph, as extracted below, would be relevant.
“I, the undersigned, being of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour in exercise of the power under Regulation 23(4) of K.S.R.T.C. Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, charge you Sri Kasim Ali Khan, Designation, Controller, C. No. working in Depot Kolar, Kolar Division for the following acts of misconduct”.
The disciplinary authority specifically stated that, in exercise of the power under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 23 that he was issuing the said article of charge. Then, again in the last paragraph of the article of charge, the disciplinary authority intimated the petitioner that if the petitioner intended to take the assistance of any other corporation servant of KSRTC of Kolar Division to present the case on his behalf, then, the name, designation and place of working of the said other corporation servant be given to the disciplinary authority in the written statement. Lastly, in the last paragraph of the Article of Charge, after setting down the statement of imputations, the disciplinary authority stated that one of the three witnesses, as per the list furnished therein, would be examined as a witness to sustain the charge. From all these circumstances, it is absolutely clear that, even for imposition of a minor penalty, the disciplinary authority, on application of mind, found a regular enquiry under Regulation 23 necessary in the present case. That is how he proceeded to serve an article of charge in exercise of the power under Regulation 23, calling upon the petitioner to submit his written statement of defence, intimated the petitioner that he could avail the services of a co-worker to present his case and also told the petitioner that one of the witness specified therein would be examined to sustain the charge. This was clearly a decision in terms of clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22 as extracted above, under which the disciplinary authority, on application of mind, arrived at a conscious decision that a regular enquiry under Regulation 23 was needed. Therefore, in reply to the said article of charge, when the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charge, he was legitimately expecting a regular inquiry in accordance with the sub-regulations (3) to (23) of Regulations 23 to be held before charge against him could be held to have been proved, and before any penalty, even a minor one, could be imposed on him. But, what the disciplinary authority did as at Annexure-B was to just refer, in the preamble to Annexure-B, the article of charge and the reply submitted by the petitioner, but, not making any reference to contents thereof, and then straight away passed an order of one paragraph to the effect that the petitioner is held guilty of the charge levelled against him, and has imposed the penalty of reducing his pay by one incremental stage permanently. Having decided to hold an enquiry under Regulation 23 in exercise of his option under clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 22, it was no longer open to the disciplinary authority to go back on that decision and to revert to the power that otherwise existed in him under Regulation 22. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, therefore, the disciplinary authority acted illegally in holding the charge proved, and imposing the penalty concerned on the petitioner without enquiry in accordance with the Regulation 23. The Appellate Authority also erred in not taking this aspect into consideration, and proceeding to decline to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority.
4. Petition is allowed. Annexures-B and D are quashed and the petitioner is held entitled to consequential benefits.
5. Though in a situation like the present one, where orders of penalty like those at Annexures-B and D are quashed, liberty is always given to the respondents-authorities to initiate fresh action if they so desired. I am of the opinion that the incident itself being of the year 1977, and the alleged misconduct being of negligence in noticing 9 unpunched tickets in the ticket tray, it is certainly not a matter that requires to be enquired into after 20 years, particularly when the workman has denied the charge and when the enquiry necessitate proof of a disputed fact on examination of one or more witnesses who have to speak to those facts on the basis of their memory in respect of facts of 20 years ago. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no liberty need be reserved, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case.