PRAMOD NARAYAN ACHAL Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer, Tansmission and Operation (O & M) at Board's Headquarters, Patna. He was served a resolution, Annexure 7, to show cause within a forthight from the date of issue of resolution as to why proposed punishment be not inflicted upon him. He filed his show cause, Annexure 8. On consideration of his show cause, the authority found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and awarded two punishments i.e. (i) Warning with an entry in his ACR of 1997-98 (ii) Stopping three annual increments with cumulative effect vide order contained in letter dated 13.1.2000, Annexure 10. THE petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure 10, in the writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that inflicting punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect without holding regular departmental inquiry is bad in law, whereas learned Counsel for the respondents contended that there is no need of regular departmental enquiry for such punishment and there is nothing wrong in passing the order of punishment withholding three increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) HOWEVER, learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision in the case of M. Devak v. State of Kerala and Anr. 1995 (4) SLR 392, wherein the apex Court while considering the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 has held that for withholding increment with cumulative effect, there is no need of regular inquiry. HOWEVER, it is evident from the said judgment that in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, a note was added which states thus: "Withholding of increments may either be permanent or temporary for a specified period. But withholding of promotion shall be only temporary for a specified period." The apex Court considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter has held that there is no need of regular inquiry for passing the order of punishment withholding increment with cumulative effect. The ratio decided is made applicable when there is similar provision. In the Bihar Rules, there is no such provision. Therefore, in my view, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, Clause (ii) of Rule 49 of the Rules no doubt says for withholding of increment but it does not mention withholding of increment with cumulative effect. The effect of punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect would be that the employee would be reduced in his time scale by three places and it would perpetuate during the rest of the tenure of his service and as such it would come under Clause (iii) of Rule 49 of the Rules which says reduction to a lower post or time scale or to lower stage in time scale. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), the Rules of Punjab Civil Services were considered by the apex Court were similar to the Bihar Rules and as such the ratio decided in the said case is applicable to the case in hand.