Judgment : This writ petition is by the workman, questioning the impugned order dated 3-2/3-2006 produced at Annexure-C and also an order at Annexure-E, dated 3-2-2007. 2. Petitioner is working as a Law Officer in the respondent-Corporation. On 21-11/12-2002 he was served with the articles of charge under Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants' (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations') inter alia alleging that, he was negligent in conducting I.D. No. 362 of 1990, which has resulted in passing of the award against the Corporation and, dismissal of W.P. No. 23838 of 1994 and Writ Appeal No. 4241 of 1999 and has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 2,07,510/-to the Corporation and also alleged that, he has not discharged his duties sincerely. 3. Corporation relied on two documents viz., the report of the Deputy Chief Security Officer dated 5-2-2002 and the report of Divisional Controller dated 5-2-2002 and on the evidence of one witness viz., Sri K.S. Sridharan, Deputy Chief Security Officer and called upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. Petitioner in pursuance of the said articles of charge submitted his reply on 17-1-2003. However, no enquiry was held and on 3-2/3-2006 as per Annexure-C, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of punishment in exercise of its power under Regulation 18-A(iii) of the Regulations, by withholding one increment for a period of two years. Petitioner herein filed an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority by its order dated 3-2-2007 dismissed the said appeal. 4. Sri Mukkannappa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the articles of charge is issued in exercise of power under Regulation 19(2) read with Regulation 23 of the Regulations contemplating an enquiry and in pursuance of which, the petitioner submitted his reply. However, without any enquiry without even hearing the petitioner, Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment and the Appellate Authority without even considering the grounds of appeal has dismissed the same. He also submitted that, even minor punishment is to be imposed by invoking Regulation 22 of the Regulations, the Corporation has to form an opinion and pass an order dispensing with the enquiry. He also submitted that, even minor punishment is to be imposed by invoking Regulation 22 of the Regulations, the Corporation has to form an opinion and pass an order dispensing with the enquiry. In this regard, he relied on a decision of this Court in the matter of Ankappa v Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Others 1996 (7) Kar. L.J. 264: 1LR 1996 Kar.3050 and submitted that, even before the minor penalty could be imposed, it is obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of holding or dispensing with an enquiry into the allegation made against the delinquent employee. The enquiry would become unnecessary only in case the Disciplinary Authority considered it to be so and recorded its opinion in express terms and without expressing its opinion, enquiry cannot be dispensed with. He submitted that, admittedly in this case, enquiry is initiated under Regulation 19(2) read with Regulation 23 of the Regulations, contemplating that the Disciplinary Authority will hold an enquiry, however, de hors to the principles of natural justice, the order of punishment has been issued. He submitted that, no misconduct is committed by the petitioner and in his reply he has explained in detail that he is not responsible for alleged lapse. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submitted that, no enquiry is necessary for imposing minor penalty. By Annexure-A, petitioner was called upon to submit his objection and in case if objections are not filed, the Disciplinary Authority indicated that it would pass appropriate orders. He submitted that, only in case if major penalty is to be imposed, an enquiry is contemplated, if a minor penalty is to be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority for the lapse on the part of the employee, no enquiry is contemplated. He relied on Regulation 22 of the Regulations and submitted that, in case an enquiry is necessary, enquiry is conducted, otherwise no enquiry is conducted under Regulation 22 and the Corporation has decided not to conduct enquiry and has imposed simple punishment of withholding of one increment for 2 years. He relied on a judgment of this Court in the matter of Sri Kasim Ali Khan v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Others 1998(1) Kar. L.J. 500: ILR 1997 Kar. 3092 and submitted that, for imposing minor punishment under Regulation 22, no enquiry is necessary. 6. He relied on a judgment of this Court in the matter of Sri Kasim Ali Khan v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Others 1998(1) Kar. L.J. 500: ILR 1997 Kar. 3092 and submitted that, for imposing minor punishment under Regulation 22, no enquiry is necessary. 6. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether the Corporation can pass an order of punishment without dispensing an enquiry by express opinion?” 7. Admittedly, the charge-sheet is issued to the petitioner as per Annexure-A and it shows that, same is issued under Regulation 23 of the Regulations. Regulation 23 deals with procedure of imposing major penalty. Initially, it is indicated that the Corporation is likely to impose major penalty and has contemplated an enquiry. It is in this regard, the petitioner submitted his reply. However, Corporation without any further enquiry has imposed punishment as per Annexure-C. No doubt, the punishment imposed by the Corporation is a minor punishment, but strangely the Corporation has neither dispensed the enquiry nor held an enquiry. This Court in the matter of Ankappa has held that, even in case if the Corporation wants to dispense with the enquiry, it must express its opinion, it can do so by expressing its opinion in clear terms and this is clear from paragraph 3 of the judgment of this Court, which reads as under: "3. ….Clause (3) of Regulation 22 further requires that any such penalty could be imposed only after an enquiry into the matter was conducted in accordance with Regulation 22(3) of the said Regulations, except in cases where the Disciplinary Authority may be of the opinion that conduct of such an enquiry was unnecessary. In other words, before even a minor penalty could be imposed it is obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of holding or dispensing with an enquiry into the allegations made against the delinquent employees. An enquiry would become unnecessary only in case the Disciplinary Authority considered it to be so and recorded its opinion in express terms on the said issue. An enquiry would become unnecessary only in case the Disciplinary Authority considered it to be so and recorded its opinion in express terms on the said issue. Needless to say that while considering any such question of either holding or dispensing with an enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to consider in a fair and objective manner not only the nature of the charges levelled against the employees but also the nature of the defence set up by him". From the decision of this Court, it is clear that, Disciplinary Authority can impose minor penalty dispensing with the enquiry, but it can do so by expressing its opinion. 8. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Kasim Ali Khan has observed at para 3 as under: “3. .. All that the disciplinary 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, and 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...". 9. Admittedly, in this case, the article of charges is issued in exercise of the power under Regulation 23, the said regulation deals with procedure in the matter of imposing major penalty. Charge-sheet does not indicate, as to whether the Corporation was intending to impose minor penalty. From the charge-sheet, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Corporation intended to hold an enquiry. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had knowledge of the proposed punishment likely to be taken against him. This Court in the matter of Kasim Ali Khan has categorically stated that the Disciplinary Authority must give an opportunity to the delinquent employee of the imputations and proposed action sought to be taken against him. There is nothing in the charge-sheet to indicate that the Corporation intended to impose minor penalty. This Court in the matter of Kasim Ali Khan has categorically stated that the Disciplinary Authority must give an opportunity to the delinquent employee of the imputations and proposed action sought to be taken against him. There is nothing in the charge-sheet to indicate that the Corporation intended to impose minor penalty. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Corporation intended to exercise its power only under Regulation 22 and not Regulation 23. Even to invoke provisions of Regulation 22, the Corporation must indicate and follow the procedure, nothing is done in this case. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, it is suffice if the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 3-2/3-2006 at Annexure-C and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 3-2-2007 at Annexure-E are quashed and matter is remitted to the Corporation to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the Corporation to take such an action in accordance with law, if Corporation so desire.