The punishment takes effect from the date of serving the order to the employee, and the currency of punishment may vary based on the nature of the punishment imposed.

ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by him in C No.J2/ PR73/ 2013 in DO No.847/ 2013 dated 26.8.13 and the consequential order issued in C.No.J2/ PR73/ 2013 DO No.891/ 2016 dated 17.12.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I for the year 2015-16 and promote him as Deputy Superintendent of police, Category-I and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

The order of punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed on the writ petitioner, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition. Further, a direction is sought for to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-I for the year 2015-16 and promote him as Deputy Superintendent of police, Category-I and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner joined as a Sub-Inspector of Police through Direct Recruitment on 28.09.1987. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 30.09.2003. There was a delay in promoting the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Police due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and after exoneration, he was promoted as Inspector with retrospective effect on par with his junior.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the right of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was wrongfully denied on account of an erroneous implementation of the punishment of postponement of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed on him. The punishment of postponement of increment for one year is to be implemented from the date of communication of the order to the writ petitioner.

4. In the present case, the order of punishment was issued on 05.08.2013, which was communicated to the writ petitioner on 18.09.2013. Therefore, the punishment is to be implemented with effect from 18.09.2013 and accordingly, the period of punishment expired on 17.09.2014 and consequently, the name of the writ petitioner ought to have been included in the panel of the year 2015-16 for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, the respondents have erroneously implemented the punishment of postponement of increment for one year by taking note of the date of fall of increment i.e., first July 2014. Such a procedure adopted by the respondents in implementing the punishment is in violation of the rules.

5. In this context, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.29297 of 2006 dated 20.02.2007, wherein the procedures for implementing the punishment of stoppage of increment has been considered and the relevant paragraph 13 of the said orders reads as under :

“13. In the writ petition in W.P.No.34829 of 2006, the original punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for one year was from 06.04.2005, which was communicated on 23.04.2005, the same was modified by subsequent order dated 09.05.2006 as that of stoppage of increment for 6 months without cumulative effect. As contended by Mr. K. Venkataramani, there is absolutely no difficulty to construe that the said modified punishment dated 09.05.2006 should be deemed to come into effect from the original date of punishment, namely, 06.04.2005. By applying that from 06.04.2005, the punishment of 6 months of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect came to an end on 23.10.2005. However, the respondents take the stand that the increment falls due in respect of the petitioner