The Punjab State And Others vs Ikatar Singh on 28 November, 2009

RSA No.1215 of 1987                   1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH.

                          RSA No. 1215 of 1987
                          Date of decision 28.11.2009


The Punjab State and others                               ... Appellants

                          Versus

Ikatar Singh                                       ... Respondent.

CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

Present:       Mr.Manohar Lal, Addl. AG Punjab .

  1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
   2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

M.M.KUMAR, J.

The defendant- State of Punjab had approached this Court by

filing the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 challenging the judgement and decree dated 8.9.1986 passed by the

learned Addl. District Judge holding that plaintiff- respondent Ikatar Singh

who was working as Fitter did not issue any fitness certificate in respect of

Bus No. 5432 which was to leave for Jammu and it was not in working

condition on account of the fact that ‘alternate of the bus was defective’. The

bus also had diesel defect. The explanation of the plaintiff- respondent was

called vide letter dated 17.12.1980 and in his reply the plaintiff – respondent

stated that he had removed the diesel defect and it will remain in starting

position for three hours and the bus never showed any defect. It was at 1.35

during night when he finished his duty. With regard to the alternate defect

of the bus, he pointed out that he had no electrician who could have

performed the job. The General Manager, Punjab Roadways issued a show

cause notice under Rule 10(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and
RSA No.1215 of 1987 2

Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for brevity ‘the Rules’) stating that why minor penalty

as contemplated by Rule 5(i) to (iv) of the rules be not imposed by stopping

two increments with cumulative effect. The imputation of the charges were

also issued. The plaintiff- respondent filed his reply but the same was

rejected as unsatisfactory. The General Manager recorded the finding that

the plaintiff- respondent could not have denied with regard to issuance of

certificate when the fitness certificate itself bear his signatures and imposed

the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

The question of law which arises for determination is as

follows:

” Whether punishment of stoppage of increment with

cumulative effect is a major penalty which could be imposed

only after holding an enquiry ?”

The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra and stand concluded by

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in favour of the plaintiff- respondent in the case

of State of Punjab v. Kulwant Singh Gill 1990(6) SLR 73. Their Lordships

of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgement has held as under:

“4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly

is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv). But sub-

rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale

of pay for a specified period with further directions as to

whether or not the Government employee shall earn increments

of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the

expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the

effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an

independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as
RSA No.1215 of 1987 3

punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major

penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments

with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning

of Rule 5(v) ? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require

conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar,

learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments

with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not

amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay.

We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention.

Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any

hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rules 5(iv)

of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two

increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would

indisputably means that the two increments earned by the

employee were cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his

upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words

the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay

and on expiry of two years the clock starts 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 pealed off its true colour or its resultant effects would

become apparent. When we broach the problem from this
RSA No.1215 of 1987 4

perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the

Rules…………….. “

In view of the above, question of law is answered in favour of the

plaintiff- respondent and against the defendant- State of Punjab. The view

taken by the learned Addl. District Judge is upheld although for different

reasoning but the fate is the same.

                                            (M.M.Kumar)
28.11.2009                                    Judge

okg