An employee under suspension may only receive a proportion of pay unless fully exonerated; penalties may be upheld if supported by valid disciplinary findings.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.:

I.A. No. 6048 of 2023

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant seeking leave to place on record the Enquiry Report dated 17.08.2007, which was not produced during the writ proceedings.

2. Having regard to the fact that the penalty imposed upon the appellant is based on the said Enquiry Report, we are of the considered view that the same is relevant for adjudication of the present appeal, as such, this interlocutory application stands allowed.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6408 of 2023 stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 650 of 2022

4. This intra court appeal is directed against the part of the order dated 29.06.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2908/2008; whereby the order of punishment of “withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year”, was not interfered with by the Ld. Single Judge and the findings with regard to Article of Charge No. IV was upheld; although the said punishment order as well as the order of the appellate authority relating to Charge no.1 held to be perverse and was quashed in W.P.(S) No. 2908/2008, and, against the part of the order dated 29.06.2022; whereby the order dated 11.06.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority treating the period of suspension from 25.10.2002 to 01.05.2007 as the period of 'non-duty' was not interfered with and was thus upheld.

5. Briefly stated, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Operator (Electrical) in the respondent–Corporation in the year 1995. During the course of his service, the appellant solemnized his marriage on 11.07.2000. Subsequently, on account of a criminal case instituted against him, the appellant was placed under suspension with effect from 25.10.2002.

In the meantime, a memorandum of charges dated 02.06.2004 was issued initiating a departmental proceeding against the appellant, inter alia, alleging (i) non-disclosure of marriage to the Corporation, (ii) demand of dowry, (iii) desertion of his wife, and (iv) leaving headquarters during suspension without permission.

The petitioner denied the charges and upon not being not satisfied with the reply, order was issued to enquire into the charges (Annexure-6) in a disciplinary proceeding. The Enquiry Officer had initially submitted an ex-parte enquiry report on 04.06.2005 as the petitioner did not attend the enquiry proceedings.

Meanwhile, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 7580/2006 challenging his order of suspension. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2007 with a direction that if the enquiry is not completed by 30.04.2007, the petitioner’s suspension shall stand automatically revoked w.e.f. 01.05.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared on 12.03.2007 in terms of the order passed by this court, the proceedings were taken up and the suspension order was revoked w.e.f. 01.05.2007 and thereafter, another enquiry report was submitted on 17.08.2007.

After enquiry, the appellant was found guilty of Charge nos. (i) and (iv), whereas charge no. (ii) was not proved and charge no. (iii) remained subject to the criminal proceedings. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 12.03.2009, imposed a minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2010.

The appellant remained under suspension for the period from 25.10.2002 to 01.05.2007 and was paid subsistence