KULWANT SINGH GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 426

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M.H. KANIA, K.N. SAIKIA, K. RAMASWAMY

Case summary

On contest by the respondent state, the trial court held that the impugned order amounts to major penalty and granted a decree invalidating the order.

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. RAMASWAMY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated February 18, 1986 in Second Appeal No. 3204 of 1984 of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. The appellant/plaintiff while was working as Inspector, Food and Supplies at Algaon. the Director. Food and Supplies, Punjab on June 10, 1976 visited the place and found him to have purchased sub-standard wheat landing him in receiving a charge sheet on June 29, 1976 for his misconduct. The appellant had submitted his explanation. Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 for short 'the Rules' envisage the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct. But the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the explanation found that the appellant committed a minor misconduct. Accordingly by order dated April 12, 1977 directed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

The appellant laid the suit for a declaration that the offending order amounts to major penalty and imposition thereof without conducting enquiry as enjoined under Rules 8 and 9 is illegal. On contest by the respondent state, the trial court held that the impugned order amounts to major penalty and granted a decree invalidating the order. On appeal. though the Distt. Court confirmed, on further Second Appeal the High Court held it to be minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules obviating the need to make regular enquiry. Assailing the legality thereof this appeal has been filed. The only question that needs decision is whether stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty?

Admittedly Rules 8 and 9 envisage conducting an enquiry into misconduct after giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee in the manner prescribed therein and on establishing the charge to pass an appropriate order imposing a major penalty prescribed in either clauses V to IX or minor penalty under clauses I to IV of Rule 5 of the Rules. If it is a minor penalty indisputably the need to conduct regular enquiry has been dispensed with. Rule 5 prescribes the penalties thus: "5. Penalties:-The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government employee, namely: K. S. GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB [K. RAMASWAMY, J. J 429 Minor Penalties (i) Censure; (ii) withholding of his promotions; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caus.

ed by him to the Government by negligence of breach of orders; (iv) withholding of increments of pay; Major Penalties (v) 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 employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the prom;ition of the Government employee to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration that grade, post or service; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment under the Government; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government'.

Clauses VI to IX are not relevant to the facts of the case. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is J minor penalty within the meaning of Rule S(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified