COMMON ORDER

The petitioner herein, while serving as a Conductor in the respondent Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge memo, dated 23.05.2018. On the strength of the proven charges, the disciplinary authority had imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect through the impugned order, dated 29.08.2018. Challenging the same, the petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.3336 of 2019. Pending the aforesaid Writ Petition, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022 and accordingly, he was permitted to retire. However, his retirement benefits were not disbursed, which made him to file a second Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).

No.14255 of 2022 seeking for the disbursement of retirement benefits.

2. The main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect is a major punishment, which was imposed without any enquiry and therefore, it cannot be sustained. He would further submit that irrespective of the punishment imposed, there was no authority for the respondents to withhold the entire retirement benefits, even though the punishment was restricted to stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the second Writ Petition also.

3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the respondent Corporation is governed by the Common Service Rules and Certified Standing Orders, which provides for disciplinary action against the employees for misconducts. Since the Standing Orders facilitate the Corporation to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, without conducting any enquiry, there is no infirmity in the punishment imposed and therefore, no interference is required. The learned Standing Counsels further submitted that in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition, they were not in a position to determine the monetary benefits payable to the petitioner and therefore, had waited for the outcome of the final decision for the purpose of disbursement of the monetary benefits.

4. I had given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels. It is not in dispute that the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was imposed without conducting an enquiry. To justify such an act, the respondents had placed reliance on the Standing Orders for the employees of Cholan Roadways Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam, as certified by the appellate authority under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which is applicable to the respondent Corporation.

5. Rule 25 of the Standing Orders provides for punishment for misconducts, in which, stoppage of increment with or without cumulative effect is found in Sub clause 1(iii). Standing Orders 26(vi)(b) provides that no enquiry will be necessary in cases involving minor punishment defined in Item No.(iii) of Standing Order 25. In other words, the Standing Order provides that in case of punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is sought to be imposed, the respondents may not conduct an enquiry.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs.

State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, had held that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is deemed to be a major penalty and imposition of such a penalty without enquiry is per se illegal. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

“4.Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the Government e