Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the Respondents to release the increment which was due to the Petitioner from the Year 2005 after the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the period of three years was over.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, who is in CRPF, while posted as CT (GD) at Berpather Tea Estate (Assam) in March, 1999 allegedly committed disobedience of orders and other misconduct.
4. He states that the Petitioner was suspended and dismissed from the service. However, subsequently in appeal the punishment was reduced to minor punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years and the Petitioner was reinstated in his previous post vide order dated 2nd August, 2001.
5. He states that subsequently, after one increment was stopped in compliance with the punishment, the Petitioner reminded the Respondents to release his increment due from 2005, however, the same has still not been paid.
6. He states that due to the non-grant of increments, the Petitioner has been adversely affected financially and the multip
The court mandated a comprehensive representation process for the release of increments due to ensure adherence to due process and a reasoned decision from Respondents.
The court emphasizes that pending representations must be decided with reasoned orders, ensuring that administrative decisions are not made mechanically.
The imposition of a penalty not prescribed under statutory rules is invalid, and cumulative penalties are not permissible under the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.
Penalties imposed must align with statutory provisions; cumulative penalties not prescribed are invalid.
The court establishes the necessity for timely administrative resolution of appeals regarding increments following the expiration of imposed punishments.
The duration of stoppage of increment cannot exceed one year as per Rule 72 of CRPF Rules 1955, and willful absence must be proven in disciplinary proceedings.
An acquitted employee in a criminal case is entitled to back wages for the period of enforced absence from service when the dismissal was set aside due to unfair trial in departmental proceedings.
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
