MEGHRAJ SINGH THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein calls in question legality validity and correctness of the order dtd. 29/12/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 inflicting penalty of withholding of next one annual increment without cumulative effect and further directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any remuneration for the period of suspension pending enquiry, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him.

(2.) Mr.Ashok Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that in clause 28 (1) of the Certified Standing Order in respect of Sipat Super Thermal Power Project, NTPC Limited, known as Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 minor penalties have been prescribed i.e. a) Censure, b) Fine, c) Suspension without wages for a period not exceeding four days and d) Stoppage of increment, as such, inflicting of two punishments i.e. withholding of next one annual increment without cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of remuneration for the period of suspension pending enquiry, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him is unsustainable and bad in law.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.B.D.Guru, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that clause 29 (ii) (e) of the Certified Standing Order would apply and the petitioner would not be entitled for any remuneration for the period of suspension pending enquiry, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.