UTTAM KUMAR Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the Order dated 13/10/1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Delhi. The Petitioner was issued a Charge Sheet and after a Department Enquiry was duly conducted, the penalty of the withholding of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. These proceedings and the punishment are not under challenge. The contention of Mr. R.K. Saini, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that the five increments should be released in favour of the Petitioner, now that the period of five years has elapsed. It is contended that the penalty of the cumulative withholding of increments is not envisaged by law; and that the period for which the increment is withheld is required to be clearly and precisely stated by the Disciplinary Authority and has not been so done. I see no merit in the Writ Petition and the arguments raised before me. The impugned Order is refreshingly succinct and correctly implements the law.

(2.) The Labour Court has ably analysed the decision of the Division Bench in C Veera Chowdaih v. State of Mysore and another, 1973 (1) SLR 241. Although the penalty was struck down for the violation of natural justice in that the official was to given' an opportunity to make a representation, the distinction between cumulative and non- cumulative withholding of increments was clearly drawn, even though this nomenclature and terminology was not employed. The Bench approved the simile, that "in substance, so far as the sendee of the Petitioner is concerned, the hand of the clock is put back by two years as though he was not in service for two years for. the purpose of computation of increments." The dichotomy in the penalty of withholding of increments was also in contemplation in the decision rendered in Alakendu Sarkar v. State of West Bengal and Others, 1981 (2) SLR 33. This decision was heavily relied upon by Mr. R.K. Saini, but the distinction is in the Rules which arc to be construed. This is what the Learned Single Judge opined in the case:

(3.) In Punjab State v. Ram Lubhaya, 1983 (2) SLR 410, the distinction between a postponement of the increments and its permanent loss was also accepted. The Learned Judge opined as follows: