B.D.Agrawal, J. - (1.) THE identical question of law which this group of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution gives rise is short but interesting. The petitioners are employees of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). In Writ Petition No. 8363 of 1986 (which has been argued as the leading case) the petitioner was a Conductor appointed by the Assistant Regional Manager, Varanasi under order dated June 1, 1978. Upon certain complaint against him a charge -sheet was served under the order of the Assistant Regional Manager on July 1, 1985 in response to which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated July 29, 1985. Enquiry followed whereafter notice to show cause dated February 4, 1986 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply. Under the impugned order passed on February 27, 1986 the Assistant Regional Manager removed the petitioner from service vide Annexure 6 to the supplementary affidavit. It is not necessary for us to dilate on the facts of other petitions and suffice it may to note that the orders impugned are of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or suspension passed as part of disciplinary proceedings by the Regional Manager, Assistant Regional Manager or in some cases the Station Superintendent. These are of recent months passed long after November 13, 1982 when the Road Transport Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Central Act 62 of 1982) came into force.
(2.) THE contention raised for the petitioners is that the Regional Manager, Assistant Regional Manager or Station Superintendent for that matter is incompetent to make the orders impugned. In view of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (for short, the Regulations) issued by the Corporation in exercise of powers under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with effect from June 19, 1981, it is argued, the Board of Directors was constituted as the appointing authority. The Board could exercise the powers as appointing authority itself or through an officer authorised by the Board to make appointment. The submission further is that the Road Transport Corporation (Amendment) Act 1982 which came into force as mentioned above on November 13, 1982 created the Board of Directors as an agency distinct from the Corporation for purposes of superintendence, direction and management of affairs and business of the Corporation and in view of Section 12 of the Act (as amended) the Board could act in the matter either itself or through the medium of some officer authorised by the Board in this behalf. No such authorisation has taken place till date. Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation urged in reply that there was delegation/authorisation made by the Corporation on February 16, 1974 under Section 12 of the Act (as it then was) which is Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 3363 of 1986 and thereunder the powers of the appointing authority are conferred upon the Assistant Regional Manager. That authorisation, it is argued, is operative still despite the Regulations 1981 or the Central (Amendment) Act, 1982 coming into force.
(3.) THE U.P. Government Roadways was originally Departmental Undertaking to provide passengers transport Service in various parts of the State. The employees serving in Roadways were Government employees. Subsequently in exercise of the powers conferred by the Road Transport Corporation Act the Government of Uttar Pradesh constituted U.P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from June 1, 1972 vide Notification issued on May 31, 1972. On the creation of the Corporation the employees serving in the Roadways as Government employees were sent on deputation to the Corporation. For the Corporation it is maintained that by gradual process the employees have been absorbed in the service of the Corporation. Some of the petitioners before us have maintained that they continued on deputation with the Corporation still and the absorption has not taken place. But this is not material for the purposes of the case because even if it is assumed that absorption has taken place as the Corporation asserts, the dispute remains whether the authority to terminate the service vests in the Regional Manager or the Assistant Regional Manager as the case may be.;