1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -136
556. Penalty of reduction to a lower grade of pay should not be for an indefinite period
A person should not be kept indefinitely in a lower grade as a measure of penalty, which has, in turn, a permanent demoralizing effect on the charged official. Such a punishment cannot be sustained.
[Mritunjaya Bhattacharya v. Union of India & Ors, Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, SLJ 2002(3) CAT.]
557. PENALTIES OF REMOVAL AND DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE- Difference between "dismissal" and "removal"
The difference between "dismissal" and "removal" is that dismissal disqualifies for future employment and removal does not.
(P.L. Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958, SC 36.]
558. Reduction to a lower stage in a time scale does not amount to ‘Reduction in Rank' attracting Art.311(2)
“The expression ‘reduction in rank' in Art.311(2), therefore, means reduction from a higher to a lower rank or post when imposed as a penalty. Therefore, an order forfeiting the past service which has earned a government servant increments in the post or rank he holds, however adverse it is to him, affecting his seniority within the rank to which he belongs or his future chances or promotion, does not attract the article.”
[State of Punjab v Nishan Das, AIR 1971 SC 766: (1971)1 LLJ 271]
559. 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].
560. Reduction in Rank can only be to the next lower rank in the hierarchy
The petitioner, who was a Stenographer Grade I, was reduced to the rank of Clerk/Typist . The Supreme Court accepted his plea that he could have been reduced to the next lower rank in the hierarchy only and substituted the order of reduction to the post of Stenographer Grade II.
[Ram Prakash Agnihotri v. District Judge, U:P., (1991)Supp. I SCC 190]
Post a Comment