RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN all these Petitions presented by the employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation the point that arises for consideration is : whether the competent authority exercising power of revision under Regulation 35 of the karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Service (Conduct and Discipline) (Regulation for short) has the power to hold enquiry as contemplated by Regulation 23 once again for the purpose of enhancing the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority ? ( 2 ) I shall, in the first instance, refer to the facts in W. P. No. 4300/1983. The petitioner was a conductor in the Unit of the Deputy General Manager and Divisional Controller, Bangalore-III dept. A Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him on the following charges on 6th march, 1980 : "1. That you have re-issued 7 tickets of Rs. 2. 40 bearing No 70120-126 to 7 passengers travelling from Doddaballapur to Bangalore which were punched at Stg. 1 and 7, again issued from Stg. 7-1 and altered the sale figure 11 as 4 in respect of Rs. 2. 40 ps. , in previous trip, closing No. from 127-120. 2. That you have failed to account ticket of Rs. 1. 60 bearing No. 271, despite closing stg. , entry5. " The article of charges, the statement of imputation as also the list of documents and witnesses on the basis of which charges levelled against the petitioner was proposed to be proved was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his written reply on 18th March, 1980 Vide annexure-B. An inquiring authority was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to inquiry into the charges. That authority held the inquiry and submitted its report to the Disciplinary authority. On consideration of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority made an order on 31st August, 1982 which reads : "k. S. R. T. C. BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE. No. KST : BD : DFL : 3 : 3660 : 2360 : 82 : 83 dated 31st August, 1982. Read : 1. Report No. 5279 dated 21st January, 1980 from the C. L. S. Bangalore Region against sri D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. B. No. 4121 regarding irregularities reported on 14th January, 1980. 2. Office Memo No. 40016 dated 14th January, 1980 issued to him. 3. Suspension Pending enquiry order issued Vide No. KST : BD DFL. 4. Read : 1. Report No. 5279 dated 21st January, 1980 from the C. L. S. Bangalore Region against sri D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. B. No. 4121 regarding irregularities reported on 14th January, 1980. 2. Office Memo No. 40016 dated 14th January, 1980 issued to him. 3. Suspension Pending enquiry order issued Vide No. KST : BD DFL. 4. Articles of Charges No. KST : BD : DFL : 3 : 3660 11054 : 79-80 dated 6th March, 1980 issued to him and his reply thereon. 5. Personal enquiry held before the enquiry officer on 19th April, 1982 and his findings thereon. I have carefully examined the proceedings of personal enquiry held and findings of the inquiring authority, other relevant records connected with the case. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, the inquiring authority has submitted his reasoned findings. The delinquent has been given sufficient opportunities at each stage of proceedings to put forth his defence on the evidence led against him in support of charges. He has not been able to bear out in the penalty receipt No. . . . . . . . . . . dated. . . . . . . . . . way bill No. 21994 dated 14th January, 1980; and the Office memo No. 40016 dated 14th January, 1980 issued on the spot on detecting irregularities together with unpunched tickets obtained from the delinquent clearly substantiates the charges and the mala fide intention of the delinquent to defraud the legitimate revenue to the Corporation. In the result and upon discussions in the foregoing I fully agree with the findings authority and hold the conductor guilty of the charges levelled against him. In the circumstances and considering the nature and gravity of acts of misconduct held proved, I proceed to make the following order : ORDER in exercise of powers vested in the undersigned by regulation 19 (2) of KSRTC Servants (Candd) regulation 1971 under part III, read with Schedule appended thereto,. Prabhakar S. Patil DGM and DC, the Competent Authority, hereby order that the Ensuing Annual Increment of Sri D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. B. C. No. 4121 be postponed for a period of One year with cumulative effect, as a measure of specific punishment, in pursuance of regulation 18-A (iii) of the aforesaid regulations. Dy. General Manager and DC sd/ dy. Prabhakar S. Patil DGM and DC, the Competent Authority, hereby order that the Ensuing Annual Increment of Sri D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. B. C. No. 4121 be postponed for a period of One year with cumulative effect, as a measure of specific punishment, in pursuance of regulation 18-A (iii) of the aforesaid regulations. Dy. General Manager and DC sd/ dy. General Manager and DC (Disciplinary Authority) ( 3 ) AS can be seen from the above order, that an enquiry in terms of Regulation 23 had been held and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary authority on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner had not preferred any appeal against the said order. However, in exercise of the powers under Regulation 35, the Regional manager issued a notice dated 22nd December, 1982, Annexure-E calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the order made by the Disciplinary Authority should not be reviewed. The relevant portion of Annexure-E reads : "therefore, I am of the view as to why it should not be revised after an assessment of entire evidence and establishing his guilt. 1. Sr. G. G. THAVARKHED, Regional Manager, B'lore Rural Region, B'lore (Appellate authority) hereby direct Sri D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. to show cause as to why the punishment awarded vide order under reference should be reviewed. His reply should reach the undersigned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this Notice failing which exparte decision will be taken in the matter. In case Sr. D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. intends to make a personal representation before the undersigned he should for the same in writing within 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice to present his case before the undersigned and he is permitted to take the assistance of a corporation servant to present his case before the undersigned and intimate name and designation of such co-worker his place of working in the written reply. " the petitioner submitted his reply vide annexure-F. Thereafter, a memo dated 29/31st January, 1983 was issued by the Regional Manager to the petitioner Relevant portion of the same reads : memo sub : Review of Default Case No. 3660/79-80 reported against Sri D. Hanumanthappa, conductor B. No. 4121 of KSRTC, BNG-III Dept. Bangalore Division, Bangalore. " the petitioner submitted his reply vide annexure-F. Thereafter, a memo dated 29/31st January, 1983 was issued by the Regional Manager to the petitioner Relevant portion of the same reads : memo sub : Review of Default Case No. 3660/79-80 reported against Sri D. Hanumanthappa, conductor B. No. 4121 of KSRTC, BNG-III Dept. Bangalore Division, Bangalore. Ref : Show Cause Notice No. KST. RM : BNR : DFL : 1532 dated 22nd December, 1982 and his reply dated 26th November, 1983 thereto. Sr. D. Hanumanthappa, Conductor B. No. 4121 of KSRTC, BNG III Dept. Bangalore Division bangalore is directed to appear before the undersigned on 18th February, 1983 at 12. 00 hours at my chambers for enquiry into the above case which is proposed to be reviewed. He may bring along will him a co-worker if any, for assistance in the enquiry. He may also bring such of the documents, witnesses on which he relies for his defence. Take notice that if you fail to appear for the enquiry on the aforesaid date the enqiury will be placed exparte. " it may be seen from the above memo, that the Regional Manager has proposed to hold a de-nova enquiry and he has called upon the petitioner to appear before him with documents and witnesses. ( 4 ) SIMILARLY in the case of all other petitioners, after holding inquiry under Regulation 23 and after the imposition of penalty, de-nova inquiry is proposed to be held against each of them. ( 5 ) THE petitioners contend that there is no jurisdiction in the appellate authority to hold another inquiry. It is in these circumstances the question set out first arises for consideration. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to set out the provisions of the relevant regulations. Regulation 18 specifies the types of penalties that could be inflicted on a corporation servant. They are classified into two categories. A. Minor penalties : (i) Fine in the case of Class III and IV servants; (ii) Censure; (iii) With-holding of increments of wages or pay; (iv) With-holding of his promotion; (v) Recovery from his wages or salary of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders. A. Minor penalties : (i) Fine in the case of Class III and IV servants; (ii) Censure; (iii) With-holding of increments of wages or pay; (iv) With-holding of his promotion; (v) Recovery from his wages or salary of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders. (vi) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of wages or pay for a specified period with further direction as to whether the Corporation servant will earn increments of wages or pay during the period of such reduction and whether, on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the failure increments of his wages of pay; (vii) Suspension for a period not exceeding 60 days with subsistence allowance of an amount equal to one half of his wages or pay which he would have drawn if he had been onduty. (viii) Reduction to a lower time scale of wages or pay grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Corporation servant to the time scale of wages or pay, grade, post or service from which the corporation servant was reduced, with or without further directions regarding the conditions of restoration of the time scale of wages or pay, grade or post or service from which the Corporation servant was reduced and his seniority and wages or pay on such restoration to that time scale of wages or pay, grade, post of service. B. Major Penalties; (ix) Removal from service which would not be a disqualification for further employment. (x) Dismissal from service which would ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. Clauses (ix) and (x) specified under Category B as major penalties are removal from service and dismissal from service. Regulation 22 prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Regulation 23 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. These correspond to Rules 12 and 11 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applicable to servants of the Government of this State which have come up for interpretation in number of cases before this Court When the procedure prescribed under Regulation 22 is followed the disciplinary authority could impose only any one of the minor penalties specified in Regulation 18. When the procedure prescribed under Regulation 23 is followed, it is open for the disciplinary authority either to impose any one of the minor penalties or any one of the major penalties. Regulation 35 (1) reads : revision. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this regulation. (i) the Corporation, or (ii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. or (iii) any other authority specified in this behalf by the Corporation by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order; may at any time either on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these regulations or under the rules standing orders or other provisions repealed by regulation 29 from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, and may (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order, or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where to penalty has been imposed, or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case : or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit; provided that no order imposing or enhancing penalty, shall be made any Revising Authority unless the Corporation Servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in Clause (ix) or (x) of Regulation 18 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in these clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after the enquiry in the manner laid down in Regulation 4. " the above regulation confers power on the authority specified in the regulation to confirm, modify or sent aside, the order made by the disciplinary authority and to reduce or enhance the penalties or to set aside the order made by disciplinary authority and to remit the matter for de-novo inquiry. " the above regulation confers power on the authority specified in the regulation to confirm, modify or sent aside, the order made by the disciplinary authority and to reduce or enhance the penalties or to set aside the order made by disciplinary authority and to remit the matter for de-novo inquiry. The proviso under the regulation however requires that if the authority empowered to revise the order were to consider that having regard to the gravity of the charges framed in the inquiry, one of the major penalties should be imposed. It is required to follow the following procedure. (i) The inquiry had been held in accordance with Regulation 22, and as no major penalty could be imposed in such inquiry, it is required to held an inquiry in accordance with Regulation 23. (ii) If an enquiry had already been held by the disciplinary authority in accordance with regulation 23 : except in cases where the proceedings are found to be defective and, therefore set aside and therefore set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority for de-novo inquiry; the authority is required to give an opportunity to the Corporation servant concerned against the penalty proposed to be imposed by it and after considering the reply furnished by the delinquent proceeding to pass final orders substituting a higher penalty in place of a lower penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority if considered justified to do so. The regulation does not authorise the holding of a second inquiry, when there had already been an inquiry under Regulation 23. ( 7 ) IN all these petitions, according to the petitioners, a regular inquiry under Regulation 23 had been held and therefore, as those proceedings have not been set aside on grounds of procedural defect, in which event, the only course open to the authority is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority, there was no provision to hold a second inquiry and to call upon the petitioner concerned to appear before the authority along with oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the impugned notices are without authority of law. Hence, the impugned notices are without authority of law. ( 8 ) APART from this, it should be pointed out that under Regulation 23, when a disciplinary proceeding is instituted for imposing major penalty against a Corporation servant, it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to adduce evidence in the first instance is support of the charge and thereafter if the delinquent so chooses, he is at liberty to adduce his defence evidence. When an inquiry in that manner has been held and the evidence on behalf of both the disciplinary authority and the delinquent Corporation servant concerned has been recorded, and the inquiring authority and the disciplinary authority have recorded a finding and final orders are passed by the disciplinary authority, there is no scope for holding the second inquiry. ( 9 ) THE proviso to Regulation 35 only requires the authority to give reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the higher penalty proposed to be imposed. Therefore on coming to a provisional decision that the punishment imposed against the Corporation servant in a disciplinary proceedings is inadequate having regard to the gravity of the charges and that imposition of a higher penalty is called for, if an enquiry under Regulation 23 had been held, the only course open to the revising authority is to issue a notice specifying the higher penalty proposed to be imposed by that authority and call upon the delinquent Corporation servant concerned to make a written representation against the proposed punishment, it would be in compliance with the rules. Nothing prevents the appellate authority to give also on oral hearing in addition to the written representation, if it so chooses, but there is no power to hold a second inquiry. Therefore, the impugned memos in all these Writ Petitions are liable to be set aside. Nothing prevents the appellate authority to give also on oral hearing in addition to the written representation, if it so chooses, but there is no power to hold a second inquiry. Therefore, the impugned memos in all these Writ Petitions are liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) FROM the documents produced as Annexures was in these Petitions, it is seen the appellate authority has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner concerned to show cause as to why the order should not be reviewed it is not a notice in compliance with the proviso to Regulation 35 (1) as no punishment was proposed to be imposed, therefore, if after the recent of the reply to the notice the authority decides to review the matter and to impose a higher penalty a further notice had to be issued by the authority specifying the penalty proposed to be imposed an calling upon the petitioner concerned to show cause agent the imposition of such punishment. But in the present case, after the petitioner concerned furnished his reply to the notice, the impugned memos calling upon the petitioners to adduce evidence were issued which as held above is without the authority of law. Therefore, the authority is at liberty to proceed further from the stage at which illegality was committed, by issuing notice to each of the petitioners by by specifying the penalty proposed to be inflicted and to pass orders after due consideration of the representation made by the petitioner concerned. ( 11 ) IN the result, I make the following : order (i) The Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) The memo in each of the Petitions is set aside leaving liberty to the reviewing authority to proceed further from the stage which illegal was committed in accordance with law and in the light of thus order. (iii) No costs.