Rama Jois, J.
1. In all these Petitions presented by the employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation the point that arises for consideration is :
Whether the competent authority exercising power of revision under Regulation 35 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Service (Conduct and Discipline) (Regulation for short) has the power to hold enquiry as contemplated by Regulation 23 once again for the purpose of enhancing the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
2. I shall, in the first instance, refer to the facts in W.P. No. 4300/1983. The petitioner was a Conductor in the Unit of the Deputy General Manager and Divisional Controller, Bangalore-III Dept. A Departmental Enquiry was instituted against him on the following charges on 6th March, 1980 :
'1. That you have re-issued 7 tickets of Rs. 2.40 bearing No 70120-126 to 7 passengers travelling from Doddaballapur to Bangalore which were punched at Stg. 1 and 7, again issued from Stg. 7-1 and altered the sale figure 11 as 4 in respect of Rs. 2.40 ps., in previous trip, closing No. from 127-120.
2. That you have failed to account ticket of Rs. 1.60 bearing No. 271, despite closing stg., entry 5.'
The article of charges, the statement of imputation as also the list of documents and witnesses on the basis of which charges levelled against the petitioner was proposed to be proved was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his written reply on 18th March, 1980 Vide Annexure-B. An inquiring authority was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority to inquiry into the charges. That authority held the inquiry and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority. On consideration of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority made an order on 31st August, 1982 which reads :
'K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE.
No. KST : BD : DFL : 3 : 3660 : 2360 : 82 : 83 dated 31st August, 1982.
Read : 1. Report No. 5279 dated 21st January, 1980 from the C.L.S. Bangalore Region against Sri D. Hanumanthappa, Condr. B. No. 4121 regarding irregularities reported on 14th January, 1980.
2. Office Memo No. 40016 dated 14th January, 1980 issued to him.
3. Suspension Pending enquiry order issued Vide No. KST : BD DFL.
4. Articles of Charges No. KST : BD : DFL : 3 : 3660 11054 : 79-80 dated 6th March, 1980 issued to him and his reply thereon.
5. Personal enquiry held before the enquiry officer on 19th April, 1982 and his findings thereon.
I have carefully examined the proceedings of personal enquiry held and findings of the inquiring authority, other relevant records connected with the case. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, the inquiring authority has submitted his reasoned findings. The delinquent has been given sufficient opportunities at each stage of proceedings to put forth his defence on the evidence led against him in support of charges. He has not been able to bear out in the penalty receipt No........... dated.......... way bill No. 21994 dated 14th January, 1980; and the Office Memo No. 40016 dated 14th January, 1980 issued on the spot on detecting irregularities together with unpunched tickets obtained from the delinquent clearly substantiates the charges and the mala fide intention of the delinquent to defraud the legitimate revenue to the Corporation.
In the result and upon discussions in the foregoing I fully agree with the findings authority and hold the conductor guilty of the charges levelled against him.
In the circumstances and considering the nature and gravity of acts of misconduct held proved, I proceed to make the following order :