SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Raj) 210

M.B.SHARMA
Suraj Mai Soni – Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. (99) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.K. Keshote, for the petitioner N.L. Pareek, Additional Govt. Advocate

SHARMA, J. — This court in the case of Prem Chand Kasliwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (1), took a view that if minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without cummulative effect is imposed on a Government servant, then such Government servant is deprived of monetary benefit of two increments and such penalty could not have any effect in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. Denial of promotion to the petitioner on the basis of the said penalty in substance amounts to imposition of penalty of with-holding of promotion on the petitioner and that would mean that the petitioner has been punished twice, first by stoppage of increment for two years and the second, by withholding of promotion on the post of Office Assistant in 1983. With due respect to the learned Bench who decided the case, in my opinion the aforesaid view needs reconsideration by a larger Bench of more then two Judges. The reasons are as under:-

(2). Under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the C.C.A. Rules), the nature of penalties have been enumerated and they are;

(i) censure;

(ii) withholding of increments of (or) promotion;

(iii) recovery from












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top