TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was served with a charge-sheet alleging misconduct against him. On receipt of the explanation from the delinquent, the Corporation decided to conduct an enquiry in the matter and appointed one N. C lakshminarasimhaiah, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as the Enquiry Officer. In the course of the enquiry, th management examined one M. Dasappa, while the petitioner examined his wife Smt. K. R. Vijayalakshmi besides his own self upon appreciation of the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer recorded a finding against the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner was in possession of Rs. 145/- contrary to circular instructions issued vide No. KST/co/10084, dated 9-3-1995 based on the enquiry report the respondents have yet to take a final decision in the matter. The petitioner has at this stage come up with the present petition challenging the enquiry repor and asking for a writ of certiorari quashing the same. ( 2 ) SRI V. Gopala Gowda, learned Counsel for petitioner, raiseca two-fold comment in support of the writ petition. Firstly, he urged that the appointment of Sri Lakshminarasimhaiah was contrary to the provisions of Regulation 23 of the Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct am discipline) Regulations, 1971. It was contended that the appointment of an outsider to the Corporation as an Enquiry officer was not within the contemplation of Regulation 23 of the (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations. Alternatively he urged that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer was perverse and therefore liable to be quashed. I find no substance in either of the two submissions made by Sri V. Gopala Gowda. In so far as the first limb of the petitioner's case is concerned, Regulation 23 does not either expressly or by necessary implication forbid the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer. Regulation 23 in so far as the same is relevant for the instant case, reads thus:"23 (2 ). Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Corporation servant it may itself inquire into or appoint under this regulation an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. 23 (5 ). Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Corporation servant it may itself inquire into or appoint under this regulation an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. 23 (5 ). (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-regulation (2), an inquiring Authority for the purpose and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Corporation servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge I after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in sub-regulations (24) to (26 ). (b) xxx xxx (c) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself inquires into any articles of charge or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Corporation servant, to be known as the "presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of articles of charge". A plain reading of the regulation does not support the argument canvassed by Sri V. Gopala Gowda that a person outside the corporation hierarchy could not be appointed as an Enquiry Officer. All that it requires is that the Disciplinary Authority may either conduct the enquiry himself or appoint an Enquiry Officer to examine the allegations made against the employee. In the absence of any specific bar to the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer, it is difficult to appreciate as to how could such an appointment be held to be bad. ( 3 ) RELIANCE by Sri V. Gopala Gowda upon the decision of alearned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Hotel Kanishka v delhi Administration, is misplaced and does not lend any support to the petitioner's case. That was a case in which the court was considering the validity of an appointment made contrary to Standing Order 16 applicable to the employees of the hotel Corporation. Regulation 16 specifically directed that the enquiry against the employee shall be conducted by an officer of the Hotel Corporation not lower than the rank of the delinquent official. That was a case in which the court was considering the validity of an appointment made contrary to Standing Order 16 applicable to the employees of the hotel Corporation. Regulation 16 specifically directed that the enquiry against the employee shall be conducted by an officer of the Hotel Corporation not lower than the rank of the delinquent official. The position in the instant case is entirely different. There is no such provision in Regulation 23 making it obligatory for the enquiry to be conducted by only an employee of the corporation. The ratio of the said judgment is not therefore applicable to the instant case. ( 4 ) THERE is yet another reason why the argument advanced is not open to the petitioner at this stage. It is not disputed that the enquiry was initiated by the Enquiry Officer as far back as in December 1995. At no time after the initiation of the enquiry did the petitioner; raise the plea of invalidity in the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. On the contrary, he not only accepted the said appointment but merrily attended the enquiry expecting a favourable verdict. Having failed in getting such a verdict from the Enquiry Officer, he has turned round to question the appointment of the Enquiry Officer. Thus I am afraid, the petitioner cannot be allowed to do, for once it is shown that the appointment has been accepted and the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer had been allowed to go to their logical end, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the spectre of the so-called invalidity. There is thus no merit in the first limb of the petitioner's case. ( 5 ) COMING then to the alternative submission of Sri V. Gopala Gowda, I see no merit even in the same. The Enquiry Officer has, while recording his findings, mainly proceeded on the admitted facts. From the evidence of P. W. 1 arid the petitioner's testimony, it was established that the petitioner did have Rs. 145/- in his possession contrary to the circular instructions, which forbid the drivers of the Corporation vehicles from carrying uncertified cash with them. ( 6 ) IT is also not disputed that the petitioner had not got the amount certified in the way bill as per the instructions referred to earlier. 145/- in his possession contrary to the circular instructions, which forbid the drivers of the Corporation vehicles from carrying uncertified cash with them. ( 6 ) IT is also not disputed that the petitioner had not got the amount certified in the way bill as per the instructions referred to earlier. The petitioner's version on the other hand is that the amount had been paid to him for the purchase of medicines for his son who was ill. According to him, since his wife did not know how to fetch the medicines she came to the bus stand with the prescription and the amount for handing the same one to the petitioner. This version has not been accepted by the Enquiry officer and in my opinion, rightly so. The Enquiry Officer has also pointed out that the genuineness of the prescription slip relied upon by the petitioner appears to be doubtful because while the checkup is said to have taken place on 1st November, 1995, the prescription was dated 1st September, 1995. Suffice it to say that there is no perversity in the view taken by the enquiry Officer. Even otherwise, it is not a case where the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer can be said to be without any evidence or wholly irrational or unreasonable so as to be termed perverse. In the circumstances there is no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the enquiry report and urge all other points as may be open to him in law against the same. No costs. --- *** --- .