The regulation of the suspension period cannot be more adverse than the penalty imposed, and unjustified directions in the order of penalty may be subject to judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. By filing this writ appeal, the appellant has called into question the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 574 of 2012.

3. The writ petition was filed challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the appellant inflicting penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect and also providing that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any remuneration for the period of suspension, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him.

4. The petitioner was working as a Store Keeper Grade-I, W-7 in Human Resources Department of the appellant. A charge-sheet dated 22.01.2008 was issued alleging (i) that the petitioner had put advance signature in the Attendance Register for 28th and 29th September, 2007 and (ii) that he had advised the Editor of “Jahirili Aag” to write against the General Manager of the appellant in the Magazine in order to get good-will advertisement. The explanation put-forth by the petitioner having not been found satisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In the disciplinary proceeding, the allegation with regard to the petitioner inviting the Editor to write against the General Manager was not proved. However, the allegation regarding putting advance signature was established. Finally, the order dated 29.12.2011 was passed by the appellant about which, reference has already been made in the earlier part of the judgment.

5. The learned Single Judge upheld the order of imposition of minor penalty. However, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay remuneration for the period of suspension pending enquiry, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him within four weeks along with 9% interest from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. It is against that part of the order by which direction was given by the learned Single Judge for payment of balance remuneration for the period of suspension that the present writ appeal is filed.

6. Mr. Bharat submits that for imposition of minor penalty, no full-fledged enquiry by appointing presenting officer and enquiry officer, is required to be made and only in cases where imposition of major penalty is likely to be imposed, a full-fledged departmental enquiry is required to be initiated. In the instant case, it was contemplated that charges against the petitioner would lead to a major penalty and therefore, a full-fledged enquiry proceeding was initiated. However, on due consideration, on completion of the disciplinary proceeding, a minor penalty was imposed.

7. Drawing attention to Clause 29(ii)(e) of the Certified Standing Order holding the field, Mr. Bharat submits that since in the instant case, penalty other than dismissal or removal was imposed, it was incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority to regulate the period of suspension and the same was accordingly done. It is submitted that learned Single Judge had committed error of law in holding that since the petitioner was subjected to minor penalty, the direction not to pay to the petitioner the balance of remuneration during suspension period could not have been passed and if the same is allowed to stand, it would result in imposition of two “major penalties” to the petitioner simultaneously. He has contended that the order dated 29.12.2011 does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. It is further contended that in the instant case, at any rate, no case was made out for grant of interest @ 9% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment.

8. Mr. Shrivastava supports the order of the learned Single Ju