Delhi High Court
O.K. Bhardwaj vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 April, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995IIAD(DELHI)217, 1995(34)DRJ35, 1995LABLC1958
Author: S.D. Pandit
Bench: S.D. Pandit
JUDGMENT S.D. Pandit, J.
(1) Petitioner O.K. Bhardwaj was appointed as a Warehouse Assistant Grade Ii on 16.3.1985 by respondent No.2, Central Warehousing Corporation. He was posted at Sonepat branch of respondent No.2. On 31.10.1991 Shri Jagjit Singh, Deputy Manager (Technical Division) visited the godowns .where the petitioner was working and he made certain investigation. In the said investigation he found certain serious irregularities and lapses. He recorded the statement of the petitioner in respect of the lapses observed by him as he had found 421 non-standard bags and when all those 421 non- standard bags were weighed and converted only 367 standard 100 per cent bags could be found. Thereafter two memos dated 24.6.92 and 30.6.92 were issued to the petitioner. By the first memo dated 24.6.92 he was called upon to give explanation regarding certain charges levelled against him and to the said memo he had given his reply and asked for supply of certain documents and on getting the said documents he was going to submit detailed reply but the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner thought it proper not to proceed with the departmental enquiry for consideration of awarding major penalty against the petitioner and in view of the material available it passed an order dated 3.8.92 awarding minor penalty of stopping three increments with cumulative effect.
(2) The petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the said order of stopping his three increments with cumulative effect. It is his contention that the stopping of three increments with cumulative effect was illegal as no departmental enquiry was held against him. According to him no charges were levelled against him and his explanation regarding the charges was also not sought for. Therefore, in these circumstances, the order of stopping his increments with cumulative effect is illegal. It is also against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same should be quashed.
(3) We had directed the petitioner to produce the rules and regulations governing the respondent No.2 and we had also called upon him to clear as to whether the penal- ty awarded to him was a minor penalty or a major penalty. Accordingly, the petitioner has produced on record the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made his submissions in detail. He has also cited before us the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab 1991 Suppl. (1) S.C.C. 504 and has contended before us that the penalty in question would be major penalty and the awarding of major penalty without holding any departmental proceeding is illegal and ultra vires. The said order is also against the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not at all heard before awarding the said penalty. He, therefore, wants us to admit this writ petition.
(4) In order to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as to see as to whether the petitioner's case is governed by the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (Supra), it is necessary to see the regulations by which the service conditions of the petitioner are governed. It is thv settled law that the decisions of the Supreme Court are to be taken into consideration and they are binding Along with the facts of the case in which the said decision is given; Language of judicial pronouncement must be understood and spoken with reference to the facts under consideration and limited meaning by those facts.
(5) Regulation 59 of the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1986 has defined the major and minor penalties and the said regulation reads as under:
"59.The following penalties may be imposed on an employee as hereinafter provided for misconduct committed by him or for any other good and sufficient reason.
MINOR Penalties :
(A)Censure;
(B)with-holding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect; ] (C)with-holding of promotion;
(D)recovery from pay of such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders. Major Penalties: (E)Reduction to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale;
(F)compulsory retirement;
(G)removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. (H)dismissal.
Explanation:
THE following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this regulation.
(I)With-holding of increment of an employee on account of his work being found unsatisfactory or not being of the required standard or for failure to pass a prescribed test or examination;
(II)Stoppage of an employee at the efficiency bar in a time scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar;
(III)Non-promotion, whether in an officiating capacity or otherwise, of an employee to a higher post for which he may be eligible for consideration but for which he is found unsuitable after consideration of his case;
(IV)Reversion to a lower grade or post of an employee officiating in a higher grade or post on the ground that he is considered after trial to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct;
(V)Reversion to his previous grade or post of an employee appointed on probation to another grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the .terms of his appointment;
(VI)Termination of services (A)of an employee appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment;
(B)of an employee appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement on the expiration of the period for which he was appointed or earlier in accordance with the terms of his appointment;
(C)of an employee appointed under a contract or agreement in accordance with the terms of such contract or agreement; and (D)of an employee on reduction of establishment."-
(6) If the above provisions of Regulation 59 are considered it would be quite clear that with-holding of pay with or without cumulative effect is a minor penalty under the said Regulation. Therefore, the penalty awarded to the petitioner is, obviously, minor penalty. It is the settled law that in case of awarding of minor penalty it is not necessary to give opportunity to the employee to give explanation and it is also not necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty. Similarly, a detailed departmental enquiry is also not contemplated in a case in which minor penalty is to be awarded.
(7) Learned counsel for the appellant has cited before us the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (Supra). The petitioner in that case was working as an Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department of the State of Punjab. His service conditions were governed by the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Rule 5 of the said Rules has made provision for awarding of penalties and the said Rule reads as under:
"5.Penalties - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a government employee, namely: MINOR Penalties (I)censure;
(II)withholding of his promotions;
(III)recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the government by negligence or 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 promotion 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 of service; (VII)compulsory retirement;
(VIII)removal from service which shall not 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."
(8) If the above quoted provision of Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules is considered it would be quite clear that as per the said provision of Rule 5(iv) only withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect was a minor penalty. In that case the petitioner was awarded penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect and, therefore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that withholding of two increments with cumulative effect was amounting to reduction to a lower stage in time scale and, therefore, it was amounting to awarding of major penalty and, therefore, the impugned order was illegal.
(9) Annexure 11 filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner was not to be given increments of 1.1.1993, 1.1.1994 and 1.1.1995 as those increments have been stopped with cumulative effect vide the order dated 3.8.9. Therefore, in the case of petitioner his future increments are stopped and the increments which are already earned by him are not affected. Thus, by the impugned order there was no reduction of his pay.
(10) We, thus, hold that in view of the Rules and Regulations by which the services of the petitioner are governed, the punishment awarded to him is a minor penalty and it is not necessary to hear the petitioner or to hold a detailed departmental enquiry before awarding minor penalty to him. In these circumstances we hold that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed in liming.