Somnath Ayyar, J.
1. The petitioner who was a conductor in the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed by the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Division of that Corporation on charges of misconduct. The appeal preferred by the petition to the General Manager was dismissed.
2. In this writ petition in which we are asked to quash the orders made by the Divisional Controller and the General Manager, Sri Shivaramayya raised the contention that under the standing orders as they stood on 29 October, 1964. When the petitioner was dismissed, an order of dismissal should be preceded by an independent enquiry by the Deputy General Manager of the Corporation in the Bangalore Division, but that no such independent enquiry was conducted by that Deputy General Manager.
3. Standing order 13, as it stood when the petitioner was dismissed, reads :
'Standing order 13 - Award of punishment. - No order of fine, suspension, discharge so ordered by the Deputy General Manager, Bangalore Division. The Deputy General Manager may order such enquiry as he thinks fit before passing orders provided that in cases where punishment of dismissal is involved, the Deputy General Managers shall hold an independent enquiry and pass orders.'
This amended standing order displaced the old standing order, and, it is clear from the standing order as it stands after its amendment that no dismissal of an employee of the Corporation is possible unless the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division of the Corporation holds an independent enquiry.
4. Sri Udaya Shankar appearing for the Corporation explained to us that the post of a Divisional Controller of the Corporation is equivalent to the post of a Deputy General Manager and that we should equip rate the enquiry made by the Divisional Controller with one made by the Deputy General Manager to whom standing order 13 refers.
5. But such equip ration is not possible for the reasons that standing order 13 constitutes the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division as the authority which should hold the independent enquiry directed by it. If that enquiry could have been conducted by any Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, it might have been possible for Sri Udaya Shankar to succeed in his contention that the enquiry conducted by the Divisional Controller, if, his post is equal to the post of a Deputy General Manager, is a sufficient enquiry for the purpose of standing order 13. But it is admitted that standing order 13 as it now stands is the product of a truce between the Corporation and its employees, and, if that standing order expressly constitutes the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division as the authority by which the independent enquiry should be conducted, an enquiry by a Divisional controller although his post is equivalent to that of a Deputy General Manager, can be no substitute for the enquiry which should be conducted only by the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore Division.
6. The petitioner raised that contention that the Divisional Controller had no power to inflict a punishment on him, even in the explanation which he submitted, which was not even referred to either by the Divisional Controller or by the General Manager.
7. So, we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Divisional Controller and also the order made by the General Manager in appeal.
8. The petitioner will be entitled to all the advantages and benefits flowing from this order including reinstatement, arrears of pay, increments and the like. No costs,