Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
10. While it may be true that non-submission of property statement and failure to reveal details of immovable property by an employee amounts to misconduct under the regulations, the question that arises for consideration is whether a major penalty could be imposed for such a misconduct without a departmental enquiry being conducted prior thereto. The enquiry conducted, with regards non-submission of property statement by the Vigilance/ACB authorities is neither a substitute nor does it obviate a departmental enquiry being conducted in accordance with the regulations. While the Vigilance/ACB report could be a factor to be taken into consideration, provided it forms part of the record of the departmental enquiry proceedings, it cannot be a substitute for conducting the departmental enquiry itself, more so since the APSEB regulations prescribe it as a prerequisite for imposition of major penalty.
Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect whether a major or minor penalty:
11. The contention that punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty, for which no enquiry need be conducted under the regulations, cannot also be accepted. The learned Counsel for the respondent relies on Schedule -I to the APSEB (Revised) Conduct Regulations and Discipline and Appeal Regulations which prescribe the Competent Authorities for imposition of penalties. The schedule, annexed to the Regulations, is the one referred to in Regulation 7(a) and categorizes minor penalties and major penalties. Among the minor penalties classified in the schedule, include withholding of increments without cumulative effect and withholding of increments with cumulative effect. Relying on this classification in the schedule to the regulations, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that withholding of increments with cumulative effect is also a minor penalty.