JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate, present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate, present for the respondents. 3. The Petitioner before this Court was a conductor in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (from hereinafter referred to as “the UTC”). At the relevant time in the year 2004, the petitioner was working in the Tanakpur Depot, which is in District Champawat (Uttarakhand). He was on duty as a conductor on a bus bearing No. U.A. 3-0116 which was going from Tanakpur to Chandigarh on 24.07.2004. Most of the passengers who were sitting in the bus i.e. 36 passengers out of 41, were of Nepalese origin who were working as labourers in the unorganized sector, at different places. Evidently, they have boarded the bus from Haridwar. At the place called Saha, in Haryana on a surprise checking which was made by the team headed by the Assistant Traffic Inspector, Tanakpur with other personnel, it was found that out of 41 passengers, 36 passengers had been charged fare for “Shimla” by the petitioner, although the bus was actually going from Haridwar to Chandigarh and Chandigarh was the final destination of the bus. In other words, the conductor i.e. the petitioner before this Court had charged a fare from the passengers which was not only higher but it was for a place where the bus was evidently not even destined to go. 4. On 29.07.2004, the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, a full fledged departmental proceeding was conducted and the charge sheet was given to him where the charge against the petitioner of cheating the passengers and causing financial loss to the department stood proved. The punishment which was imposed on the petitioner was not a major penalty but the punishment imposed on the petitioner was that he was asked to give Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as a fine and pecuniary loss which he has caused to the department, in future he shall not be considered for promotion for further four years and in the suspension period, no amount be paid to him. This order was passed on 16.04.2005. The petitioner is governed by the Rules known as “the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1981.” An appeal is provided under Section 69 of the Regulations, Section 69 of the Regulations read as under:- “69. This order was passed on 16.04.2005. The petitioner is governed by the Rules known as “the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations, 1981.” An appeal is provided under Section 69 of the Regulations, Section 69 of the Regulations read as under:- “69. Appeal – (1) An employee shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by the appointing or any other authority. (2) An employee preferring an appeal shall do so in his name. The memorandum of appeal shall contain all material statements and arguments relied upon by the appellant. (3) The appeal shall not contain any intemperate language. Any appeal, which contains such language may be liable to be summarily dismissed. (4) The appeal shall be addressed to the appellate authority and submitted to the authority, against whose order it is preferred through the moral proper channel. (5) The appeal shall be preferred within three months of the date of the order. An appeal preferred beyond three months but not beyond six months of the date of the order, may be accepted by the appellate authority is sufficient cause is shown for the delay. An appeal preferred beyond time shall be dismissed summarily.” 5. Against the order dated 16.04.2005 passed by the Regional Manager, Tanakpur, petitioner moved an appeal before the Managing Director, the appeal remain pending and it was ultimately decided on 07.09.2009 by the General Manager (Administration) wherein after discussing the entire incident and considering the overall evidence which are available before him, he came to the conclusion that the penalty of the charges stood proved and the penalty was much less considering the serious charges and thereafter he passed an order by which the petitioner’s services has been dismissed. Aggrieved, this order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition before this Court. 6. In this matter, counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged. 7. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the General Manager (Administration) could not have passed order dated 07.09.2009 inasmuch as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the General Manager (Administration). The Regulations prescribe that the appellate authority can actually exercise against the sentence awarded by the disciplinary authority that such powers could have been statutorily given to the appellate authority under Section 69A of the Regulations, which reads as under:- “69. The Regulations prescribe that the appellate authority can actually exercise against the sentence awarded by the disciplinary authority that such powers could have been statutorily given to the appellate authority under Section 69A of the Regulations, which reads as under:- “69. A. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations the Chairman or in this 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; (b) direct that a further enquiry be held in the case; (c) reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by such order; (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.” 8. From the perusal of the above provision (i.e. 69A of the Regulations) it appears that the General Manager (Administration) has passed the impugned order on a misconception that it could have authority under Section 69A of the Regulations which includes power to enhance penalty. 9. Firstly, order under Section 69A of the Regulations could only have been passed, in fact, this has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht that the impugned order has been wrongly passed under Section 69 of the Regulations, though the order could have been passed under Section 69A of the Regulations. He submits that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction, then liberty be given to the Corporation to pass an order afresh under Section 69A of the Regulations. 10. Although powers have been given under Section 69A of the Regulations to the authority which include enhancement of penalty and these powers can be exercised suo motu. There are certain limitations to it. 10. Although powers have been given under Section 69A of the Regulations to the authority which include enhancement of penalty and these powers can be exercised suo motu. There are certain limitations to it. Firstly these powers can only be exercised by the Chairman of the Corporation and only in his absence, the Managing Director of the Corporation can exercise these powers but in the present case, these powers have been exercised by the General Manager (Administration). Secondly, though these powers can be exercised suo motu by the Chairman or the Managing Director as the case may be but it can only be exercised within a period of three months from the order which is sought to be appealed. Since order which was initially passed is an order of 29.07.2004. The order under Section 69A of the Regulations could only have been passed on or before 29.10.2004. It has been passed, however on 07.09.2009. Therefore, the order is beyond the period of limitation. Indeed, the charges against the petitioner were of extreme serious in nature. He had cheated 36 innocent poor passengers of their hard earned money and had not only caused monetary loss to the department and has also brought disrepute to the organization. But this was for the disciplinary authority to have seen but for reasons best known to it, the department had imposed minor penalty on the petitioner, although charges stood proved. 11. In the fitness of things, the Chairman or the Managing Director should have exercised powers suo motu under Section 69A of the Regulations, it has already been seen that Section 69A of the Regulations carries immense and wide powers subject to certain limitations. The limitation is not only of time but also of the authority to exercise its powers. On both counts, this has not been done. The General Manager (Administration) does not have powers under Section 69A of the Regulations. Therefore, technically speaking the order which is presently being impugned before this Court is order dated 07.09.2009 cannot be sustained as it is totally without jurisdiction. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and order dated 07.09.2009 passed by General Manager (Administration), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation is hereby set aside. 12. It is further made clear that the punishment earlier imposed against the petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2005 shall remain. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and order dated 07.09.2009 passed by General Manager (Administration), Uttarakhand Transport Corporation is hereby set aside. 12. It is further made clear that the punishment earlier imposed against the petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2005 shall remain. The concerned authority shall consider the conduct of the petitioner and the rules therein as well as the past record of the petitioner. Authority shall also be at liberty to think about compulsory retirement of the petitioner, if the rules so provide. Regarding the back wages of the petitioner, it is however made clear that the petitioner shall also be at liberty only to pray to the concerned authorities for his subsistence allowance for the suspension period. Further the petitioner will not be liable for the entire back wages on the principle of no work no pay, but the department may consider giving an amount not conceding 25% of the back wages, as compensation to the petitioner. 13. No order as to costs.