The court clarified the effect of the minor penalty of withholding one increment of pay and its impact on the petitioner's future promotion prospects.

Jain, CJ

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayers:

“Under the facts and circumstances it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue Rule calling upon the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus/certiorari and appropriate writ/order or direction may not be issued commanding /directing the respondents authorities:-

a. Revoke the minor penalty of the petitioner’s.

b. Release the arrears salary, increment along with interest at the rate of 12% and Provident Fund from the month of January 2011 to April, 2013 which is payable to the petitioner with the interest rate of the concerned year for the interest of justice and fair play.

c. after perusal of the records, causes shown if any and upon hearing the parties, may be pleased to quash the impugned order of the minor penalty of withholding of one increment of the petitioner’s and make the rule Absolute and/or pass any other order/orders/directions as your Lordships deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.

d. Stay of transfer order of the petitioner’s if any till the disposal of this petition.

e. Cost of the proceedings may be imposed on the Respondent No. 2.

For which act of kindness the petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.”

3. From the above prayer, it appears that there are mainly two grievances of the petitioner, first, is about awarding of minor penalty of withholding of his one increment of pay and second, is about release of arrears of salary from January, 2011 to April, 2013.

4. From the pleadings and submissions of parties, it appears that charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and he was suspended during pendency of the enquiry. After conclusion of enquiry, the suspension order of the petitioner was withdrawn and he was awarded with minor penalty of withholding of one increment of pay.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, vide order dated 23.04.2013, the respondents No. 2 and 3 have awarded a minor penalty of withholding of one increment of pay upon the petitioner and no order has been passed about forfeiture of his salary, which was not paid during suspension period. Therefore, it was prayed in the writ petition that respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to release the salary of the petitioner from the date of his suspension, till the date he is reinstated in the service. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents No. 2 and 3 have paid the amount of salary of the above period to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also admitted this fact. In these circumstances, the writ petition to that extent has become infructuous.

6. Next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the minor penalty has wrongly been imposed upon the petitioner, he submitted that the order has been passed in violation of rules, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that in the impugned order dated 23.04.2013, it is not mentioned as to whether the withholding of one increment of pay will be “with cumulative effect” or “without cumulative effect”. If it is stated to be with cumulative effect, then it may amount to major penalty and he may suffer in future as and when his case is considered for promotion. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

7. Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 opposed the writ petition. However, on instruction of the Principal of respondent No. 3 i.e. DAV Public School, NHPC Rangit Nagar, who is present in Court, he submitted that withholding of one increment of pay is concerned, the same is “without cumulative effect”. The said withheld increment of pay will now be paid to the petitioner at the earliest, as the period of one year has already been expired in April, 2014. He also submitted that since it is a case of mi