Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N.Saikia : K.Ramaswamy : M.H.Kania
Kulwantsinghgill
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 2960 of 1987
Date of Decision : 9/13/90
Advocates Appeared: Khullar O.K. : Kohli R.C. : Nayar C.M.
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 - Punishment - Enquiry - Appeal by special leave is against judgment and decree in Second Appeal Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh - Appellant plaintiff while he was working as Inspector Food and Supplies at Alga on Director Food and Supplies Punjab visited place and found him to have purchased sub standard wheat landing him in charge sheet for his misconduct - Appellant had submitted his explanation - Rules Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules for short Rules envisage procedure to conduct an enquiry into misconduct - But disciplinary authority on consideration of explanation found that appellant committed minor misconduct - Accordingly by directed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect – Held, Further contention that procedure Rule was followed by issuance of show cause notice and consideration of explanation given by appellant would meet test of Rules is devoid of any substance - Conducting an enquired hors rules is no enquiry in eye of law - It cannot be countenanced that pretence of an enquiry without reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence both by department as well as by appellant in rebuttal examination and cross examination of witnesses if examined to be an enquiry within meaning of Rules - Those rules admittedly envisage on denial of charge by delinquent officer to conduct an enquiry giving reasonable opportunity to presenting officer as well as delinquent officer to lead evidence in support of charge and in rebuttal thereof giving adequate opportunity to delinquent officer to cross examine witnesses produced by department and to examine witnesses if intended on his behalf and to place his version; consideration thereof by enquiry officer if disciplinary authority himself is not enquiry officer - Report enquiry in that behalf to be placed before disciplinary authority who then is to consider it in manner prescribed and to pass an appropriate order as for procedure in vogue under Rules – Gamut of this procedure was not gone through – Therefore issuance of notice and consideration of explanation is not procedure in accordance with Rules - Obviously disciplinary authority felt that enquiry into minor penalty is not necessary and adhering to principles of natural justice issued show cause notice and on receipt of reply from delinquent officer passed impugned order imposing penalty thinking it to be minor penalty - If it is considered as stated earlier that it would be only minor penalty procedure followed certainly meets test of principles of natural justice and it would be sufficient compliance with procedure - In view of Finding that impugned order is major penalty certainly regular enquiry has got to be conducted and so impugned order is clearly illegal - Trial court rightly granted decree – Appeal allowed
Judgment
K. RAMASWAMY, J.
(1) THIS appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated 18/02/1986 in Second Appeal No. 3204 of 1984 of Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh. The appellant/plaintiff while he was working as Inspector, Food and Supplies at Algaon, the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab on 10/06/1976 visited the place and found him to have purchased sub-standard wheat a landing him in receiving a charge-sheet on 29/06/1976 for his misconduct. The appellant had submitted his explanation. Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 for short the Rules envisage the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct. But the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the explanation found that the appellant committed a minor misconduct. Accordingly by order dated 12/04/1977 directed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appellant laid the suit for a declaration that the offending order amounts to major penalty and imposition thereof without conducting enquiry as enjoined under Rules 8 and 9 is illegal. On contest by the respondent State, the trial court held that the impugned order amounts to major penalty and granted a decree invalidating the order. On appeal, though the District court confirmed, on further second appeal the High court held it to be minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iV) of the Rules obviating the need to make regular enquiry. Assailing the legality thereof this appeal has been filed.
(2) THE only question that needs decision is whether stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty? Admittedly Rules 8 and 9 envisage conducting an enquiry into misconduct after giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee in the manner prescribed therein and on establishing the charge to pass an appropriate order imposing a major penalty prescribed in either clauses (v) to {ix) or minor penalty under clauses (i) to (iV) of Rule 5 of the Rules. If it is a minor penalty indisputably the need to conduct regular enquiry has been dispensed with. Rule 5 prescribes the penalties thus:
"5. Penalties.The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a government employee, namely: MINOR PENALTIES (i) censure; (ii) withholding of his promotions; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the government by negligence or breach of orders; (iV) withholding of increments of pay; MAJOR PENALTIES (v) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a . specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the government employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the government employee to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the government employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration that grade, post or service; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the government; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the government."
(3) CLAUSES (vi) to (ix) are not relevant to the facts of the case.
(4) WITHHOLDING of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iV). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further -directions as to whether or not the government employee shall e
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
