Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. On 16th June, 1993 Regulation 69-A was inserted in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (other than the Officers) Service, Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The said Regulation is as follows:- “69. A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations the Chairman or in his absence the Managing Director of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation may, on its own motion, or otherwise, call for the record of any case relating to dismissal, removal and reduction in rank decided by any of the authorities subordinate to him in exercise of powers conferred by these Regulations and- (a) confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority or (b) direct that a further enquiry be held in the case; or (c) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by such order; or (d) made such other order in the case as it may deem fit. Provided that if enhancement in the penalty imposed where by any such order, the employee concerned, shall be given opportunity of showing cause against the proposed enhancement; Provided that if enhancement in the penalty imposed whereby any power; on its own motion, or otherwise, shall not call for the record beyond the period of three months from the date of order in appeal.” 2. In exercise of powers under Regulation-5 of the said Regulations, on 12 February, 2001, an amendment was effected to Regulation 69 of the said Regulations whereby the Chairman and the Managing Director, both became entitled to use the powers provided for under Section 69-A of the said Regulations. In the present writ petition, the legality of Section 69-A has been challenged. Before we go into the question raised in the writ petition, it would be appropriate, on our part, to take note of the facts of the case. 3. Petitioner, a Conductor in the employment of respondent Corporation, was issued a charge sheet. The same was inquired into. The Inquiry Officer held that two charges have been proved against the applicant. One of those charges was giving free trip, in a bus of the respondent Corporation, to eight passengers at the time when inspection of the bus was conducted. The other charge, which was reported to have been proved, was that the petitioner snatched some tickets from the Inspector who conducted the said inspection. One of those charges was giving free trip, in a bus of the respondent Corporation, to eight passengers at the time when inspection of the bus was conducted. The other charge, which was reported to have been proved, was that the petitioner snatched some tickets from the Inspector who conducted the said inspection. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the inquiry report and thereupon issued second show cause notice, enclosing a copy of the inquiry report. By the said notice, petitioner was called upon to show cause why penalty of reducing 5 increments in the time-scale, in which he was, should not be imposed as penalty, while concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner did show cause. After considering the show cause of the petitioner, by an order, the petitioner was lowered by three stages in the time-scale in which he was. Thereupon, the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation exercised power under Regulation 69-A of the said Regulations and while doing so, he having had proposed to enhance the penalty, gave an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed enhancement. Petitioner did show cause in writing as well as in person. Thereupon, petitioner has been dismissed from service by the order impugned passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation in exercise of power under Regulation 69-A of the said Regulations. 4. In addition to questioning legality of Regulation 69-A of the said Regulations, it has been contended that asmuchas Chairman of the Corporation was present at the time when power was exercised by the Managing Director of the Corporation, exercise of power by Managing Director of the Corporation, being illegal, should be quashed. As aforesaid by the amendment mentioned above, the Managing Director in addition to Chairman is competent to exercise power under Regulation 69 A of the said Regulations. 5. It was also contended that power under Regulation 69-A can only be exercised in cases relating to dismissal, removal and reduction in rank and in the instant case there being no dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, exercise of power was beyond the purview of Regulation 69-A of the said Regulations. The said Regulations provide, amongst others, the manner and mode of conducting disciplinary proceedings and specifically provide in Regulation 63 what penalties may be awarded on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The said Regulations provide, amongst others, the manner and mode of conducting disciplinary proceedings and specifically provide in Regulation 63 what penalties may be awarded on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Regulation 63 (5) of the said Regulations provides that penalties by way of reduction to a lower grade or reduction to a lower post or reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale are some of the penalties which can be awarded as major penalties. Regulation 63 separately does not provide for a penalty by way of reduction in rank. In the circumstances, reduction in rank, as mentioned in Regulation 69-A should encompass reduction to a lower grade, reduction to a lower post and reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale, i.e. all and each of those penalties mentioned in Regulation 63 (5) of the said Regulations. 6. In the instant case, petitioner having been reduced to a lower stage in his time-scale by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Managing Director was competent to exercise power under Regulation 69-A of the said Regulations. 7. It is the contention of the petitioner, as highlighted by the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, that unbridled power has been granted to the Chairman and the Managing Director under Regulation 69-A without any guidelines as to how such power should be exercised and accordingly, the said Regulation is illegal. It was further contended that the said Regulation does not incorporate any mechanism to prevent arbitrary use of power conferred thereby. It was submitted that the power conferred by the said Regulation should be used for positive purposes but there appears to be no guidelines as to how such power can really be exercised for bringing into effect positiveness. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited before us the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of ‘Ms. Dwarka Prasad vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1954 SC-224’ and also the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of ‘B.B. Rajwanshi vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1089’ where the said judgment of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed. 9. In Dwarka Prasad (Supra), the challenge was to a provision of the control order, which granted power to grant and to refuse to grant licences by merely recording reason therefor. 9. In Dwarka Prasad (Supra), the challenge was to a provision of the control order, which granted power to grant and to refuse to grant licences by merely recording reason therefor. It was held that grant of such power, which may be misused, is not permissible. Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that although there was a requirement to record reasons, but there was nothing in the control order, which provided that the reasons may be looked at by any other authority for the purpose of determining propriety thereof. The Court felt that such unbridled power may be used to settle scores. 10. In B.B. Rajwanshi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with the validity of Section 6(4) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which authorised the State Govt. to remit an award for reconsideration of the Adjudicating Authority. Hon’ble the Supreme Court noticed that on such remission, the award can be recalled, altered or annulled to the prejudice of the award holder. Hon’ble Court noticed that no guidelines have been given as to how such power of remittance should be exercised. Hon’ble Supreme Court further noticed that if such power remains with the State Government, the State Government may utilize such power in relation to employees of undertakings owned by it to the utter prejudice of such employees by procrastinating resolution of disputes forever. 11. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Court declared that the said provision is illegal. In order to save the said provision, it was urged before the Hon’ble Court that it may read into the provision the requirement to give a hearing to the parties before passing an order and to record reasons in support of the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court having regard to the words used, could not read the same into Section 6(4) of the said Act. 12. Regulation 69-A of the said Regulation authorises not only confirmation but also modification and reversion of the order passed by the Lower Disciplinary Authorities. It confers power to reduce penalty imposed. Similarly, it has power to enhance penalty imposed. The Regulation contemplates making of such orders, which seem fit and proper in addition to direct further inquiry. Therefore, the power granted is balanced. The power is to be exercised for the benefit of the employees as well as for the benefit of the employer. It confers power to reduce penalty imposed. Similarly, it has power to enhance penalty imposed. The Regulation contemplates making of such orders, which seem fit and proper in addition to direct further inquiry. Therefore, the power granted is balanced. The power is to be exercised for the benefit of the employees as well as for the benefit of the employer. However, in the event, a benefit already granted by the Lower Disciplinary Authority is required to be taken off i.e. the penalty is to be enhanced, the Regulation imposes an obligation of giving an opportunity of showing cause to the person likely to be affected. When Regulation requires giving of an opportunity of showing cause, it directs that the person authorised to give show cause should be empowered to exercise such power in such manner as he thinks fit and proper and accordingly, he can show cause in writing or in oral, or by both. In the instant case, as aforesaid, in addition to submission of show cause in writing, oral submission was made by the petitioner. The moment, a person is empowered to give show cause it inheres that the person gets an opportunity of being heard. At the option of the person entitled to such opportunity, the hearing may be in person, while oral submissions may be heard or it may be in writing only or both. 13. When the Regulation requires grant of opportunity of showing cause, it inheres that if enhancement of the penalty is ordered, the person exercising power under the said Regulation, should take into account the show cause given, which in turn, requires giving of reasons in support of exercise of the power. Therefore, what was sought to be read into Section 6(4) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in B.B. Rajwanshi’s case, has been inserted in Regulation 69-A of the said Regulations and accordingly, it cannot be said that arbitrary power has been granted by the said Regulation to the Authority Competent to exercise power thereunder. 14. We, accordingly dismiss this writ petition.