Allahabad High Court
Sunil Kumar Srivastava vs Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., ... on 8 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)AWC628
Author: D.K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner has been punished on account of certain misconduct pursuant to a domestic inquiry. While inflicting punishment the petitioner was placed at the bottom of the scale of Rs. 950-1,090 for five years. Thus, the petitioner has been reduced to the lower stage in a time-scale and at the same time, his increment has been withheld for five years.
2. Shri Surendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact two punishments have been inflicted which cannot be done for one offence. He relied on a circular dated 3.7.1993 in support of his contention that there cannot be any reversion to the basic pay.
3. Mr. Samir Sharma. learned counsel for respondents on the other hand contends that clause 5 of Regulation 63 of the U. P. State Roadways Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 (hereinafter called as the Regulation) provides reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale as major penalty. According to him. the said provision does not prescribe reduction to a lower stage to a stage other than bottom of the scale, viz., the basic pay. Therefore, the circular Issued cannot override the regulation having a statutory force. He further contends that the punishment inflicted is a single punishment and not a dual punishment as contended by Mr. Singh.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
5. It is not necessary to go into the question as to whether there is any contradiction between the circular referred to by Mr. Singh which is dated 3.1.1993 Issued by the Managing Director with the Regulation or. not simply for the reason that the Regulation having statutory force cannot be altered or amended by executive instruction. Regulation 63 (5) clearly provides reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale as a major punishment. The proposition advanced by Mr. Singh that by way of such punishment, the pay cannot be fixed at the bottom of the scale does not appear to be of any substance. Inasmuch as if a person is punished at a point of time when he has received only one increment in a particular time-scale with reduction to a lower stage of said time-scale. In that event such punishment cannot be implemented. That apart, there is no qualifying clause provided in clause 5 of Regulation 63 to the extent by which it could be restricted above the bottom of the time-scale. Therefore, I am unable to agree with contention of Mr. Slngh to that extent. A plain reading clearly indicates that by way of major punishment, a person can be reduced to a lower stage even if it be in the bottom of the time-scale.
6. It appears from the order of inflicting punishment contained in Annexure-5 that the petitioner was reduced to the first stage of time-scale of Rs. 950-1,090 for a period of five years. Thus, the petitioner has been reduced to the bottom of the stage, viz., to a lower stage in the time-scale as a major penalty within the meaning of clause 5 of Regulation 63. Thereafter, he would remain at the same stage for five years which in effect is withholding of increments for five years which is a minor punishment provided in clause 2 of Regulation 63. Thus, the order of punishment in effect has inflicted two punishment to one minor punishment as provided in clause (2) of Regulation 63 and second, a major punishment as provided in clause (5) of Regulation 63. Withholding increments is a distinct and separate punishment described as a minor punishment, while reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale is another separate and distinct punishment described as major punishment. When both are combined together that does not render the punishment to be one. It is in effect joinder of two punishments. The major punishment contained in clause 5 of Regulation 63 does not provide that simultaneously the reduction in the lower stage of time-scale may be coupled with withholding of Increments. Therefore, even though the punishment is coined in an intricate fashion involving two punishments of two different categories, does not help the contention of Mr. Sharma to treat the punishment as one. In fact two punishments having been inflicted as observed above. The punishments does not appear to have been properly inflicted.
7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order of punishment is hereby quashed. Let a writ of certiorari do issue accordingly. The authority concerned shall consider the quantum of punishment in the light of the observation made above and may inflict one or the other punishment as it may deem fit and necessary according to its own wisdom on the basis of materials on record.
8. However, there will be no order as to cost.