RANGILA RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Original Application is third sequel of earlier two O.S. As. Earlier the applicant filed OA No. 2235/1994 and this Tribunal directed the same to be treated as a representation to the Secretary (Law) and in the meanwhile the operation of impugned order was stayed. The Secretary Law considered and rejected the same. Against the order of rejection the applicant filed second OA No. 25/1995. In Second Original Application this Tribunal quashed the impugned order under challenge by holding the penalty of removal too harsh and issued further directions to re -instate the applicant with all the consequential benefits and impose and minor penalty. No appeal or writ petition was filed by the respondents against this order of 6.1.2000 passed by this Tribunal and the same has thus attained finality. However, the respondents imposed penalty of stoppage five increments with cumulative effect from respective dates i.e. from 20.9.1994 vide impugned order in the present Original Application dated 12.10.2000 Annexure/A/5.

(2.) Thus the moot question for my adjudication is that whether the impugned penalty is in consonance with the directions issued by this Tribunal on 6.1.2000.

(3.) Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules governs provisions with regard to nature of penalties. Minor penalties are provided under sub -rule (i) (iv) and major penalties are provided under sub -rules 5(xi). The impugned penalty imposed upon the applicant is of nature provided under sub rules (v) (vi) as such the same is major penalty in nature. It has been so held by various Honble High Courts and Honble Apex Court that the penalty of nature of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is major penalty. These judgments are: (a) 1981 (2) SLR 807 (Cal. Food Corporation of India vs. State of West Bengal: -