Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.66 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
M/S Goa Shipyard Ltd vs Babu Thomas on 30 May, 2007
11. The petitioner contests this interpretation, arguing that the
penalty imposed was a reduction of two increments and not a
reduction in pay by two stages in the time scale. He contends that
the interpretation of the punishment in Ext.P14, P16, and P19 is
highly arbitrary and that the penalty is shockingly disproportionate
to the charges. The petitioner denies all allegations, maintaining that
he committed no misconduct or dereliction of duty. Furthermore, no
mala fide intention was established; the incident was merely a
technical lapse that was later ratified by a superior officer. Relying
on the precedent in Goa Shipyard Ltd. v. Babu Thomas [(2007)
10 SCC 662], the petitioner argues that the subsequent ratification
of an act is equivalent to prior authority. Finally, the petitioner
2026:KER:21951
WP(C)No. 13861 of 2017
8
contends that the denial of promotion is itself a penalty under the
IRCTC (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003. He points out that under
the amended rules effective 08.07.2014, a "reduction to a lower
stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding
three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting
pension," is classified only as a minor penalty. He further highlighted
the disproportionate nature of the treatment he received. It was
further asserted that no corresponding amendment was brought to
Rule 8(V) of the said Rules, which reads as follows :
Union Of India & Ors vs Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan on 7 January, 1998
In support of the contention, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that the position with
respect to sealed cover proceedings was considered by the Apex
Court in Union of India and others v. Sudha Salhan [(1998) 3
SCC 394], wherein it was held that the recommendation of the
2026:KER:21951
WP(C)No. 13861 of 2017
14
Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) can be placed in a sealed
cover only if, on the date of consideration of the employee's name
for promotion, departmental proceedings had been initiated or were
pending, or though concluded, final orders had not been passed by
the appropriate authority. It was further held that if the officer
against whom departmental proceedings were initiated is ultimately
exonerated, the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the
DPC can be opened and the recommendation can be given effect to.
State Of M.P vs J.S. Bansal & Anr on 9 February, 1998
24. In the case of the petitioner, since a punishment was
imposed on him, there was no requirement to adopt the sealed cover
procedure. This view was also adopted by the Apex Court in State
of M.P. v. J.S. Bansal [(1998) 3 SCC 714], wherein it was further
clarified that the sealed cover could be opened only in cases of
complete exoneration of the employee from all charges, and notional
promotion could then be granted from the date on which his juniors
were promoted. However, when a penalty is imposed, the sealed
cover need not be acted upon.
Union Of India And Others vs K. Krishnan on 20 November, 1991
25. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that two
punishments were imposed on him, the same was answered on the
strength of the reported decision in Union of India and others v.
K. Krishnan [AIR 1992 SC 1898], wherein it was held that there is
only one punishment visiting the respondent as a result of the
conclusion reached in the disciplinary proceedings leading to the
withholding of increments, and the denial of promotion during the
currency of the penalty is merely a consequential result thereof. The
view that a government servant, who is suffering a penalty pursuant
to disciplinary proceedings, cannot at the same time be promoted to
a higher cadre is a logical one. The Apex Court held that such
decisions are neither unjustified nor arbitrary and do not violate
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
30. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases
of K.V. Janakiraman, K.Kunhunni, and K. Krishnan, supra the
denial of promotion on the ground of an imposed penalty--and during
the currency of such penalty--does not amount to double jeopardy
or double punishment. Such a denial is merely a natural
consequence of the disciplinary process. If the petitioner were to be
granted promotion with retrospective effect during the period of
punishment, it would effectively amount to rewarding the petitioner
for the proved misconduct. Such an outcome would be contrary to
the fundamental principles of disciplinary proceedings, which are
intended to maintain and enforce discipline within the service of the
establishment.
1