Minor penalties like censure cannot permanently bar career advancement or financial benefits under service regulations, and employees must be compensated for withheld entitlements post-penalty.

Judgment :

Smita Das De, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in WPA No. 17142 of 2010, challenging inter alia, the denial of financial benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) upon completion of 10/20 years of service.

2. Apropo the facts of the case is that, the petitioner joined the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent corporation’), as a conductor on completion of training period and other formalities on July 18, 1980 in the basic pay of Rs. 1040-1920/.The petitioners pay has been fixed at Rs. 3350-6335-3710(pay fixation as per Ropa 98) with effect from 22.07.1997. The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) with clause (c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act , 1950 and with previous sanction of the State Government.

3. On 7.12.98 a charge sheet bearing no. 1688/CSTC(s) has been issued against the petitioner, while working as a Junior Traffic Supervisor. A disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet dated 07.12.1998. The proceedings culminated into an order of censure and warning. The proceedings has been initiated mainly on the following memo of charges –

i. Keeping unbooked one long journey’s passenger who was penalized with fine of Rs 150 due to negligence of duty of the petitioner.

ii. Keeping unbooked a gang of three long journeys passengers which total fare price amounted to Rs 42.00 till demand and detection with a motive, violation of Rules and Regulations of the CSTC Employees Service Regulations.

iii. Non performance of duty faithfully and diligently as imposed on him each of these constituting misconduct.

4. On 15.12.98 petitioner submitted his written statement of defence refuting all the allegations made against him. On 24.6.2003 vide Memo No 458/5/CSTC the final order has been passed by the Respondent no 2, by the said order, the petitioner has been censured and warned to be more careful in future.

5. On 01.04.2006 a representation has been made by the petitioner before the Managing Director, praying inter alia, for incremental benefits and proper benefits under the same scheme. Withholding of the incremental benefits under the said scheme is the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.

Contention of the Petitioner

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite completing ten years of service in the year 2000, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the said Scheme, owing to the pendency of the charge sheet for disposal. The disciplinary proceedings culminated with an order of censure in 2003 but the petitioner has not been allowed to higher scale till 2003, despite the scale has fallen due in 2001. The petitioner has been placed on higher scale of pay of Rs.3600-7050 with effect from 01.07.2006 though the scale remained to be due to the petitioner with effect from 2001.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the promotion has been withheld as there has been an order of censure followed by a disciplinary proceeding.

8. As per regulation 36A read with regulation 39A (b) clearly stipulates that penalty for minor offence shall include censure and withholding of increment upto a period of 6 months. A notification dated 14.02.1992 came into effect by inserting clause 36 A which is reproduced below –

“36A. Penalty for minor offence shall include censure and withholding of increment upto a period of six months .If within a period of six months an increment is found to have committed two successive minor offences the subsequent offence shall be treated as major offence and shall be treated as major offence and shall be proceeded against in the usual course in respect of second offence.”

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the benefits of the said Scheme has been deferred for long 6 years by withholding the inc