Service Law--Punishment--Penalty imposed in a departmental proceedings takes effect prospectively from the date of its imposition and would not relate back to the period when the alleged offence/misconduct was committed

JUDGMENT :

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

1. This Full Bench has been constituted consequent on an order dated September 22, 2016, whereby when admitting this Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench doubted the correctness of the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Major Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, (1992) 1 SCT 436, wherein it had been held that the punishment when awarded to an employee in departmental proceedings "would relate back to the period when the alleged offence/misconduct was committed or in any case when the same was detected."

2. Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as Clerk in Sessions Division Ropar on 03.06.1982. He was given a fresh appointment through proper channel as Clerk in Sessions Division, Chandigarh on 12.10.1983. He was transferred to the High Court on 09.09.1986. He was promoted as Sr. Assistant on 12.05.1989, as Superintendent Grade-II on 20.08.2007 and Superintendent Grade-I on 01.04.2011.

3. While working as Sr. Assistant he was served with a charge sheet on 28.07.2000 for imposition of major penalty for causing delay in hearing of a case. A regular enquiry was held. Vide order dated 07.11.2005 penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. He preferred service appeal, in which vide order dated 27.04.2012 taking a lenient view the penalty was modified to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. It was directed that the punishment as imposed should relate back to the date of the order of his punishment.

4. One Sharda Dogra, the immediate junior of the petitioner in the seniority list, was promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 21.07.2005. The petitioner was passed over in view of the departmental proceedings pending against him. The said Sharda Dogra was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I on 30.05.2007. The case of the petitioner was not considered as the currency of his punishment was from 01.05.2006 to 30.04.2007. After the expiry of that period the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent Grade-II on 20.08.2007 and Superintendent Grade-I on 01.04.2011.

5. He submitted representation for modification of the order dated 27.04.2012 passed in the service appeal to the extent that the punishment imposed on him may relate back to the date of misconduct or to the date of issuance of charge-sheet. The representation was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2012.

6. He then submitted representation dated 05.10.2012 requesting that he be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f 21.07.2005, the date when his immediate junior Sharda Dogra was promoted and that he be granted all consequential benefits including promotions to the post of Assistant Registrar, by taking his penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect to relate back to the date of alleged commission of the offence i.e the year 1997 or to the date of the issuance of charge sheet on 28.07.2000 i.e when the alleged offence was detected. He wanted that the period of the currency of punishment be reckoned as from 18.04.2000 to 17.04.2001. The representation was rejected vide order dated 11.04.2013.

7. Aggrieved he filed CWP No. 8484 of 2014 which has been allowed. The Ld. Single Judge held that the punishment would relate back to the date of lapse of the petitioner which would be the date of issuance of the charge-sheet i.e. 28.07.2000. He has been directed to be promoted as Superintendent Grade-II w.e.f. 21.07.2005, the date when his junior Sharda Dogra was so promoted with all consequential benefits.

8. The Ld. Single Judge relied on the decision in Major Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, (1992) 1 SCT 436 where in it was held that the punishment relates back to period when the offence/misconduct was committed.

9. The High Court preferred Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench vide order dated September 22, 2016 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge. It felt that the principles laid down in Major Singh Gill's case would re