1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -124
486. "REDUCTION TO A LOWER STAGE IN A TIME SCALE
Though the penalty is not covered by Art. 311(2) the various Service Rules have categorized this penalty as a ‘Major Penalty' and, hence, the holding of full-fledged inquiry is essential before this penalty can be imposed on a public servant.
487. Implications of the Penalty
This penalty, as it has been specified in the various Service Rules, has the following implications.
i. the penalty can be imposed for a specified period only. It goes without saying that it must be a reasonable one;
ii. the reduction in pay can be ordered to any lower stage in the time scale, but cannot be fixed at an amount below the minimum of the scale;
iii. it is obligatory for the authority to make orders –
(a) whether the employee will draw his normal increments during the currency of punishment, and
(b) whether the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments.
488. The penalty does not result in loss of seniority
Where the penalty of reducing the scale of pay for one year with cumulative effect was imposed and the department treated it as adversely affecting the seniority of the employee also, the Supreme Court held that the latter was not permissible. The Court observed - "It is seen that the punishment imposed was only reduction of scale of pay for one year with cumulative effect. That does not have the effect of reducing his seniority nor would it be a punishment of reduction of seniority of any placement which the appellant would be entitled to hold in the order of seniority.” [Mohd. Habibul Haque v. Union of India, (1995) Supp.2 SCC 140].
489. Three forms in which the penalty can be imposed
In R.K. Bharati v. Union of India, (No. 141/1986, d. May 19, 1986, the Delhi Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal held that if during the period of operation of this penalty the public servant is allowed to draw his normal increment, then the question of postponement of future increments does not arise. The reason is that if there is only reduction in pay but no withholding of increment, how can it postpone any future increment. In view of this decision, the penalty can take any of the following three forms, namely,
i. the employee draws his normal increment during the currency of punishment, and the period of penalty does not operate to postpone his future increments;
ii. the employee does not draw his normal increment during the currency of punishment but the penalty has not the effect of postponing his future increments; and
iii. the employee does not draw his normal increment during the currency of the penalty and the penalty has also the effect of postponing his future increments to that extent.
It will be seen that while the penalty in the form (i) above does not result in much financial loss to the employee, the quantum of loss increases in the form (ii). The penalty is most severe in its form (iii).
490. Format of the order
Every order passed by competent authority imposing this penalty should indicate
(a) the date from which it will take effect and the period for which the penalty shall be operative;
(b) the stage in the time-scale (in terms of rupees) to which the employee is reduced; and
(c) the extent (in terms of years and months) to which the period referred to (a) above shall operate to postpone the future increments.
[FR. 29(1); GI MOF O.Ms. No. F.2 (34)-E. 111/59, dated 17.8.1959 and 9.6.1960)
Post a Comment