MAIN POINT
In stoppage of pay without cumulative effect, employee continues to earn increments but it is not paid. All increments are added at the end of punishment period.
In stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, employee ceases to earn increment and starts at square one at the end.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 796 of 2012 whereby the High Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

3. The broad essential facts which are to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff joined the services of the appellant – Punjab State Electricity Board (for short ‘the Board’) on 17.12.1984 as Lower Division Clerk. As the respondent-plaintiff remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave from 9.7.1987 for a considerable time, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. After following due procedure as envisaged under Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971, the competent authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual increments without cumulative effect and further the period of absence mentioned in the Show Cause Notice was directed to be treated as non-duty period.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, the respondent filed Suit No. 155 of 2006 for declaration that the manner in which the said order of punishment was sought to be implemented by the authorities was illegal and absolutely unjustified. It was averred in the plaint that the effect of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect should mean that the Board shall release each year’s increment before stoppage of increment in the ensuing year. It is apt to state here that the respondent did not challenge the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority nor did he call in question the quantum of punishment inflicted on him vide order dated 9.8.2002.

5. The Board entered contest in the suit and explained the position as regards the nature of punishment contending, inter alia, that the effect of an award of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect would mean that increments for period of five years would be released all together at the end of five years and as such, no illegality and/or irregularity has been committed by the Board in implementation of its orders.

6. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala framed five issues which basically pertain to a singular compartment, namely, whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to the effect whether the defendants wrongly and illegally had implemented order No. 329 dated 9.8.2002 as a consequence of which the plaintiff has suffered future loss and, if so, to what relief he was entitled to.

7. The learned trial Judge on the basis of material brought on record decreed the suit by directing payment of arrears accruing due to respondent from the date of accrual (at the end of each year and before stoppage of next increment) till its realization with interest @ 18% per annum. The finding recorded by the learned trial Judge was to the following effect:

“As per Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishments & Appeal) Regulations; 1971, withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect comes within the definition of minor penalties. Moreover, 5 increments were stopped without cumulative effect, but in this way implementation order shows that actually 15 increments of plaintiff have been stopped and he has suffered major financial loss. With regard to the authorities relied upon by counsel for plaintiff these are not directly applicable to the present case and it is only guidance to this Court how to interpret the words and phrases as enshrined in rules. Certainly this Court has to take guidance of such authorities to interpret the words when there is no earlier interpretation by Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, nor brought to the notice of this Court. In considered view of this Court, the defendants have wrongly implemented the order dated 09.08.2002. Plaintiff is certainly entitled for decree of declaration to this