SAROJ KUMAR MISHRA Vs. BOARD OF DIRECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS stoppage of increments with cumulative effect a major penalty ? This is the prime question that arises for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner who seeks quashing of the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect inflicted on him by the Board of Directors, Orissa State Financial Corporation (vide Annexure -6).

(2.) FACTS necessary for the purpose of the case may be briefly noted. A set of charges as per Annexure -1 was served on the petitioner calling upon him to explain why penalty as envisaged under Regulation 44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations. 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations) should not be imposed on him. The gravamen of the charges is that during his incumbency as Branch Manager, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Bolangir Branch, he committed irregularities by sanctioning and disbursing term loan in favour of one Md. Aziz and in connection with inspection of Messrs Shreema Press. Ha submitted his reply denying the charges as per Annexure -4. The charges were enquired into and the Enquiry Officer on consideration of the materials available on record submitted his report dated 24 -12 -1991 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. The Board of Directors of the Orissa State Financial Corporation (in brief 'Corporation') as the disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report and the evidence recorded during enquiry and came to hold that the charges were established and . accordingly imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as communicated by the impugned order at Annexure -6. The petitioner filed an application for reconsideration of the said penalty which was rejected as communicated in the letter dated 9 -2 -1992 at Annexure -C.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Regulation 44 of the Staff Regulations framed by the Corporation provides that without prejudice to the provisions of other Regulations, an officer employee who commits a Breach of regulations of the Corporation shall be eligible to disciplinary proceeding and penalty as are provided in the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in brief referred to as the Orissa CCA Rules) and the procedure for disciplinary proceedings as contained In those rules shall be followed by the Corporation. In view of the fact that Orissa CCA Rules are applicable to the disciplinary proceeding in respect of officer employee of the Corporation, we may therefore, look at Rule 13 thereof which deals with the nature of penalties which can be imposed on a delinquent employee. Withholding of increments is one of the minor penalties provided in Rule 13. The said rule does not provide imposition of penalty by way of withholding of increments with cumulative effect. At this stage we may examine Rule 13 (vi) which is a penalty by way of reduction to lower service grade or post or to a lower time -scale or to a Lower stage in a time -scale which can be imposed on a delinquent employee for good and sufficient reason. The said penalty is however a major one. The question whether withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major or minor penalty came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab,91 Suppl. {1) SCC 504. In that case the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty or stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the delinquent officer under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Holes, 1970, Under the Punjab Rules withholding of increment simplicter is a minor penalty. There is also no provision of withholding of increments with cumulative effect under those Rules. Rule 5 (v) of the Punjab Rules prescribes a penalty In the nature of reduction to a lower stage in the time -scale of pay for a specific period with further direction as to whether or not the Government employed shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whetner on the expiry of the period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future incremants of his pay. The said penalty is a major one under the Punjab Rules. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, the Supreme Court after examining the rules observed as follows: