IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 9606 of 1992
Date of Decision: 10.03.2009
Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, Revenue Accountant, at present
posted at City Sub Division No. 1, Punjab State Electricity
Board, Kapurthala.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman.
2. The Chief Engineer, (D.S) North, Punjab State Electricity
Board, Jalandhar.
3. The Chief Accounts Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,
Patiala.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondents.
****
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated
14.12.1990 (Annexure P4), whereby penalty of stopping of one increment
with cumulative effect was imposed upon petitioner. The appeal against the
said order was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure P5).
The said order has been challenged on the ground that such
punishment is a major penalty, but the same has been imposed by adopting
the procedure meant for minor penalty.
In reply, it was averred that stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect is a minor punishment in terms of Regulations 5 and 10 of
the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal)
Regulations 1971.
In Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 504, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the order imposing
penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major
punishment. It was held to the following effect:-
“When penalty was imposed withholding two
increments i.e. for two years with cumulative
effect, it would indisputably mean that the two
increments earned by the employee was cut off
as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward
march of earning higher scale of pay. The clock
was put back to a lower stage in the time scale of
pay and on expiry of two years the clock started
working from that stage afresh. The insidious
effect of the impugned order, by necessary
implication, is that the appellant employee is
reduced in his time scale by two places and it is
in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his
service with a direction that two years’
increments would not be counted in his time
scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words
are the skin to the language which if peeled off
its true colour or its resultant effects would
become apparent. When the problem is
approached from this perspective the effect is as
envisaged under R. 5(v). Rule 5(iv) does not
empower the disciplinary authority to impose
penalty of withholding increments of pay with
cumulative effect except after holding inquiry
and following the prescribed procedure. Then the
order would be without jurisdiction or authority
of law, and it would be per se void.”
In view of the above, the order passed by the respondents is
void as it is not a minor penalty. Admittedly, due procedure for imposing
major penalty was not followed.
In view of the above, the order dated 14.12.1990 and order
dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure P4 and Annexure P5) respectively are set-
aside.
The Writ Petition is thus allowed with no order as to costs.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
10.03.2009 JUDGE
Amodh