1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -122
476. Withholding of Increments
The penalty of withholding of increments can be imposed for a specified period only. The orders issued by the Government of India vide. MHA O.M. No. 21/5/70Ests.(A), dated 15-5-1971 and DP&AR O.M. No. 22011/2/78-Estt. (A), dated 16-2-1979, provide that promotion cannot be given to the employee concerned during the currency of the punishment. The Supreme Court has held that the provision is reasonable [Union of India v. K. Krishnan, 1992 AIR SCW 2150]. The contrary view taken by the CAT in Parveen Kumar Aggarwal v. I.C.A.R., (1988)8 ATC 496, was over-ruled.
477. Withholding of increments with cumulative effect
In Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, (1991) Supp. I SCC 504, a three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held since the withholding increment with cumulative effect results in cut off for ever in his upward march of higher scale of pay, it cannot be treated as a minor penalty and, therefore, the procedure prescribed for imposing a major penalty shall have to be followed
However, in M.P. State Agro Ind. Dev. Copn. Ltd. v. Jahan Khan, C.A. No. 4041 of 2007 decided on 5.9.2007, a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed - "We may, however, hasten to add that it cannot be laid as a hard and fast rule that stoppage of increments, with or without hedge over it, is always to be treated as a major penalty, necessitating regular enquiry. It would depend on the Rules and Regulations governing the service conditions of the employee, though ordinarily, in the absence of specific Regulations, withholding of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty because it has a perpetual effect on the entire tenure of service of the employee."
478. Inspection of records should not be denied
In case the employee makes a request for inspection of some official records before submitting his reply, he should be allowed access to the relevant official records for taking extracts as he likes (Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 122-1). Suitable extension of time for submitting the reply should also be allowed in deserving cases
479. Situations in which full-fledged inquiry is essential in minor penalty proceedings
The various Discipline Rules prescribe the situations in which the holding of a full-fledged inquiry as prescribed for major penalty proceedings is obligatory. The reason is that though the penalty imposed is technically a minor one but its effects are quite grave to warrant the holding of a detailed inquiry. So far as Central Civil Services are concerned, Rule 16(1-A) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, provides that the holding of the full-fledged inquiry is obligatory in the following circumstances -
(i) where it is proposed to withhold increments of pay and such with-holding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant ; or
(ii) where the proposal is to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years, or
(ii) where the proposal is to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period.
480. Situations in which full-fledged inquiry is essential in minor penalty proceedings
In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v, State of Punjab, (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 504, the holding of full-fledged inquiry shall be essential if the penalty to be imposed is withholding of increments with cumulative effect
The rules also provide that a full-fledged inquiry, as is prescribed for major penalty action, may be held where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such an inquiry is necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Normally, a detailed inquiry is not necessary where the allegation is predominantly based on the documents. But, if in a case the oral evidence forms a substantial part, the holding of full-fledged inquiry shall become necessary because the witnesses can be examined and the oral evidence can be recorded only by that procedure.
Sometimes, the employee concerned may make a request that in order to afford him a proper opportunity of defence, a detailed inquiry may be held. He must give reasons for such a request. The disciplinary authority should consider the request objectively. The criterion shall always be whether the recording of oral evidence is necessary in the case.
Post a Comment