JAGDAMBA PRASAD Vs. COMMISSIONER VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th January. 1998 by which his representation for payment of the difference of salary during the period under suspension was refused. In this case, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of the charges. In the enquiry report dated 28th September, 1994, the Enquiry Officer had found that by reason of lapses on the part of the petitioner. Nagar Mahapalika had suffered pecuniary losses. Therefore, with adverse entry in service record one year's Increment was suggested to be stopped. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 22nd August, 1995 had passed a different order of punishment to the extent that the petitioner would not be entitled to the difference of pay of salary during the period under suspension and that an adverse entry be entered in his service record and he may be reinstated. Mr. G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer therefore, it was necessary, that reason should be indicated for such disagreement. In support of his contention, he relies on paragraph 10 of the decision in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India, JT 1995 (7) SC 43. On this ground, he contends that the order contained in Annexure- I refusing the payment of difference of salary for the period of suspension and the order contained in Annexure- 2 inflicting the punishment different from what was suggested by the disciplinary authority should be quashed.

(2.) Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the punishment was reduced by the disciplinary authority and as such there is no infirmity since a lesser punishment has been inflicted. Therefore, it was not necessary to record any reason therefor. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) In reply Mr. G. K. Slngh submits that the punishment inflicted was not lesser than the punishment proposed by the Enquiry Officer. Inasmuch as if one year increment was stopped, the petitioner would have suffered less pecuniary benefit than what he is losing by reason of non-payment of the difference of pay during the period of suspension. Therefore, it was an enhancement of punishment. As such, the giving of reason was mandatory.