1. Bank officer dismissed for misconduct — penalty later reduced to reduction in pay stages — dispute over salary entitlement for the suspension period. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 29
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Om Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Disciplinary Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.176 of 2020
Decided on : 14-01-2020
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Anoop Kr. Srivastav, R.N.Pareek, P.K. Sinha, Navin Singh, Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Sakshi Gaur, Khushboo Aggarwal, Sorabh Dahiya, Vibhu Sharma, Nipun Sharma, Garvit, Anmol Mehta, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Anoop Kr. Srivastav, R.N.Pareek, P.K. Sinha, Navin Singh, Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Sakshi Gaur, Khushboo Aggarwal, Sorabh Dahiya, Vibhu Sharma, Nipun Sharma, Garvit, Anmol Mehta, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Reduction of penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not result in exoneration of Appellant of charges framed against him.
(2) If reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement.
Headnote:
Service Law – Suspension – Payment of salary – Reduction of penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not result in exoneration of Appellant of charges framed against him – However, it is for Disciplinary Authority to take a decision as to how period of suspension shall be treated – While passing impugned order, Disciplinary Authority held that Appellant shall not be entitled for any payment for period of suspension – If reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement – Award of back wages for period when employee has not worked may amount to rewarding delinquent employee and punishing employer for taking action against misconduct committed by employee, which should be avoided – Decision of Disciplinary Authority in not paying salary for period of suspension cannot be said to be contrary to law – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 10, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant worked as an officer of Regional Rural Bank Services with the Muzaffarnagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. penalty of reduction of pay of 15 stages was challenged by Appellant by filing a Writ Petition. Later, Disciplinary Authority modified the punishment of reduction to 10 stages (increments) lower in time scale of pay for a period of six years with further direction that the officer shall not earn the increments of pay during the period of said reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction shall have the effect of postponing the future increments on his pay. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. High Court upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the Writ Petition filed by Appellant. Only question that arises for consideration in present appeal is whether Appellant is entitled to payment of salary for period of suspension.
Findings of Court:
Reduction of penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not result in exoneration of the Appellant of the charges framed against him. However, it is for Disciplinary Authority to take a decision as to how the period of suspension shall be treated.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims salary for suspension period following reduced penalty — Respondent contends no entitlement as charges were proved and employee not exonerated. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. Reduction of penalty does not equal exoneration — awarding back wages to a delinquent employee may reward misconduct and punish the employer. (Para 10 , 12 )
4. Reinstatement resulting from the imposition of a lesser punishment does not automatically entitle a delinquent employee to back-wages or continuity of service. (Para 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed — decision of the Disciplinary Authority denying salary for the suspension period upheld. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does the reduction of a penalty from dismissal to a lesser punishment amount to exoneration of the employee?
No. The court held that reducing the penalty does not disturb the findings that the charges were proved and does not result in the exoneration of the employee from the charges framed against them. (Para 10 )
7. Is a delinquent employee automatically entitled to back-wages or continuity of service if they are reinstated due to a reduced penalty?
No. Reinstatement as a consequence of the imposition of a lesser punishment does not naturally or necessarily entail back-wages, continuity of service, or consequential benefits. (Para 12 )
8. What is the legal perspective on awarding back wages to an employee whose misconduct was proved?
Awarding back wages for a period when the employee has not worked, despite proved misconduct, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action against the misconduct. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Appellant worked as an officer of Regional Rural Bank Services with the Muzaffarnagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter, ‘the Bank’). On 27.05.2003, he was served with a charge sheet and was asked to submit his reply within a period of fifteen days. The charges that were framed against the Appellant are:
1. You did not comply the directions and regulations of Head Office.
2. You have worked against the interest of Bank/Injurious work, you was unauthorised absent.
3. You are isolated for the interest of Bank and to your duties.
2. Yet another charge sheet was issued on 30.05.2003 in which the following charges were framed:
1. You have violated discipline of bank.
2. You are accused of misconduct.
3. You have made effort to diffuse the Bank image and on the basis of it your worked that injurious to the health of Bank.
3. The Appellant submitted his reply to the said charge sheets dated 27.05.2003 and 30.05.2003. The Appellant was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.07.2003. He challenged the order of suspension by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of with a direction to the bank to complete the inquiry within four months. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad refused to grant reinstatement. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on 23.12.2003 to the Disciplinary Authority. An opportunity was given to the Appellant to submit his remarks on the inquiry report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Appellant to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service. A reply was submitted by the Appellant on 11.06.2004, which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Another reply was submitted by the Appellant on 23.06.2004. By an order dated 05.07.2004, the Appellant was dismissed from service without any benefits under Regulation No.38 (kha) (4) of Muzaffarnagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Modified) Officer and Staff Services Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter, ‘the Regulations’).
4. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of dismissal which was not entertained by the High Court. Liberty was given to the Appellant to file an appeal. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court, the Appellant submitted an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service to the Board of Directors, Muzaffaragar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The said appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors by an order dated 24.03.2005. The Appellant was successful in his challenge against the order passed by the Board of Directors dismissing his appeal before the High Court. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Board of Directors on 24.03.2005 and remanded the matter back to the Board of Directors to consider the appeal filed by the Appellant afresh. The Board of Directors dismissed the appeal on reconsideration. A Writ Petition filed against the order of the Board of Directors dismissing the appeal second time was allowed and the Appellate Authority was directed to apply its mind to the quantum of punishment and pass a fresh order. A Sub-Committee was constituted by the Board of Directors and it was held by the Committee that the charges of misconduct against the Appellant did not warrant the penalty of dismissal from service. The Committee further recommended that the penalty of dismissal be reviewed and reduced to that of reduction of 15 stages in payment, lower in time scale of pay for a period of eight years with a further direction that the Appellant shall not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction shall have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (b) (i) of Chapter IV of the Regulations. The recommendation made by the Committee was accepted by the Board of Directors and the punishment suggested by the Committee was imposed by the Board of Directors on 10.09.2012. The Appellant retired on attaining the age of
