Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)Kulwant Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab on 13 September, 1990
" 7. Undisputedly the punishment order was
issued against the petitioner after giving him a
show cause. Though as per the law laid-down by
the Apex Court, penalty of withholding of
increment of pay with cumulative effect is deemed
to be a major penalty but in the rules the same is
treated as a minor penalty. Since it is not clarified
whether withholding of increment or stagnation
allowance, as enumerated in Rule 10(iv) of the
Rules, with cumulative effect is also a minor
penalty, the law laid-down by the Apex Court is
required to be kept in mind and if the said law is
made applicable, withholding of increment of pay
with cumulative effect is deemed to be a major
penalty. This has to be held so because the
penalty if imposed with cumulative effect will not
only cause prejudice, monetary loss to the
Government employee while in service but the
loss will also be caused after the retirement of the
employee concerned and even the family pension
will also be affected. Looking to such long effect
of the penalty, it cannot be treated to be a minor
penalty at all. Law in this respect has been well
settled long back by the Apex Court in the case of
Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1991
Supp(1) SCC 504, wherein the Apex Court has
categorically held that if a penalty is imposed in
such a manner, affecting the rights during service
and even after service, it has to be treated as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 10-04-2026
17:34:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9864
11 W.P. No. 27564/2024
major penalty, which cannot be imposed without
conducting a ful fledged enquiry as enumerated
under Rule 14 of the Rules. Admittedly no charge-
sheet was issued to the petitioner and only a show
cause under Rule 16 of the Rules was given to
him, which means that only a summary enquiry
was conducted for imposition of a minor penalty.
In the garb of minor penalty, a major penalty
should not have been imposed on the petitioner."
1