1. Dispute concerning whether withholding increments with cumulative effect constitutes a minor penalty and the necessity of following natural justice before awarding such penalties. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1609
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Jeevan Reddy : K.S.Paripoornan
O.K.Bhardwaj
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/4/96
Even for minor penalties, the principles of natural justice mandate that the delinquent employee be given an opportunity to explain the charges, and a formal enquiry must be conducted if factual charges are denied.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Minor Penalty - Withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect is classified as a minor penalty. (Para 3)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Minor Penalty - Opportunity to be heard - Even in the case of a minor penalty, an opportunity must be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or file an explanation with respect to the charges against him. If the charges are factual and are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This constitutes the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice and cannot be dispensed with. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a finding that the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty and that, in cases of minor penalties, it is not necessary to provide the employee an opportunity to give an explanation, hear them, or conduct a detailed departmental enquiry before awarding the penalty.
Findings of Court:
The court agreed that withholding increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty. However, it disagreed with the proposition that natural justice can be dispensed with for minor penalties, holding that the right to be heard and the necessity of an enquiry for denied factual charges are mandatory.
Issues: Whether the award of a minor penalty exempts the disciplinary authority from providing the delinquent employee an opportunity to be heard or conducting a departmental enquiry when factual charges are denied.
Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice require that even for minor penalties, the delinquent employee must be given an opportunity to file an explanation. Furthermore, if the charges are factual and denied, a formal enquiry is necessary to satisfy the minimum requirements of natural justice.
Result: Appeal allowed with directions to remit the matter to the lower court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether awarding a minor penalty dispenses with the requirement to provide the employee an opportunity for explanation or a detailed departmental enquiry. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Withholding increments is a minor penalty, but natural justice requires providing the delinquent employee an opportunity to explain or, if factual charges are denied, a formal enquiry. (Para 3 )
4. Principles of natural justice require that an employee be given an opportunity to explain charges, even for minor penalties, including a formal enquiry if factual charges are denied. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the High Court to verify if the employee was given an opportunity to be heard and if a lawful enquiry was conducted. (Para 4 )
6. Is withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect a major or minor penalty?
Withholding increments of pay, whether with or without cumulative effect, is classified as a minor penalty. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Is it necessary to provide an opportunity for explanation before awarding a minor penalty?
Yes, even for a minor penalty, the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent employee be given an opportunity to have their say or file an explanation regarding the charges. (Para 3 )
8. When is a formal departmental enquiry required in cases of minor penalties?
A formal enquiry is required if the charges against the delinquent employee are factual and those charges are denied by the employee. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE High Court has recorded its opinion on two questions: (i) that the punishment imposing stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is not a major penalty but a minor penalty; (ii) in the case of minor penalties, "it is not necessary to give opportunity to the employee to give explanation and it is also not necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty": a detailed departmental enquiry is also not contemplating in a case in which minor penalty is to be awarded.
(3) WHILE we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that "withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect" is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.
(4) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, however, says that though the second proposition of the High Court may not be correct, yet so far as this case is concerned it does not make any difference for the reason that in this case, as a fact an opportunity was given to the appellant and that there has been adequate compliance with the principles of natural justice. But since the High Court has not considered the matter from the above angle that is on merits the proper course in our opinion is to remit the matter to the High Court to consider whether an opportunity was given to the appellant to put forward his case and whether in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, an enquiry was called for and if called for, was it held according to law and the principles of natural justice, and to dispose of the matter according to law. The appeal is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
