K C ARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated December 31, 1990 and May 31, 1991. By each of these orders, the petitioner's one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. The first order has been challenged through C. W. P. No. 14748 of 1991 while the second order is the subject matter of CWP No. 2577 of 1992. Both these orders have been challenged on a common ground viz. the order stopping an increment with cumulative effect amounts to the imposition of a major penalty which could not have been imposed except after holding a regular enquiry. The short question involved in the case does not require a detailed examination of the factual position.

(2.) THE conditions of service governing the petitioner are laid down in the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The punishment which can be imposed on an employee are enumerated in Regulation 4. The relevant provision in the said Regulation provides as under:-

(3.) MR. P. S. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect results in reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale of pay and consequently falls within the mischief of Regulation 4 which is a major penalty. As against this, Mr. A. K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the withholding of increments "with or without cumulative effect" has been specifically mentioned as a minor penalty and, therefore, the claim made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be sustained.