122. Knowledge Spectrum – Discipline Minor Penalties - 38
101. What are distinguishing features between Major and Minor Penalties?
The distinction between Major and Minor penalties may be perceived from three angles viz. what, who and how.
Firstly, minor penalties are lighter penalties whereas major penalties are heavier penalties. It is noteworthy, that till the amendment in August 2004, incorporating clause (iii) (a) [reduction to lower stage by one stage without cumulative effect ....] recovery from pay of loss caused was the only penalty wherein the delinquent had to lose money. Otherwise, none of the minor penalties had the effect of taking away any benefit enjoyed by the delinquent. On the contrary, the major penalties result in deprivation of the benefits/position enjoyed by the delinquent such as loss of employment, etc.
Secondly, major penalties could be imposed only by the Appointing Authority whereas authorities subordinate to the Appointing Authority have been designated to impose minor penalties.
Thirdly, major penalties can be imposed only after conducting a detailed oral hearing as provided for under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, unless conduct of Inquiry has been dispensed with under any of the provisions under the second proviso to Article 311 (2) which has been reproduced in Rule 19 of the CCA Rules. Against this, ordinarily, under normal circumstances, minor penalty can be imposed after issue of memorandum and perusal of the response of the delinquent.
102. What are the extra-ordinary circumstances when even for imposition of minor penalty, a detailed oral hearing is to be conducted?
The circumstances when detailed oral hearing is held for imposition of minor penalty fall under two broad categories viz. optional and obligatory.
(a) Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCA Rules provide that even for imposing a minor penalty, detailed oral hearing as provided for in Rule 14(3) to 14(23) of the CCA Rules may be held in every case in which the Disciplinary authority is of the opinion that it is necessary. Disciplinary authority’s decision to conduct detailed oral hearing may be either suo mottu or based on the request of the delinquent. Generally, where either of the parties may rely on oral evidence, it would be necessary to conduct oral hearing. If the evidence is purely documentary in nature, there may not be any need for conducting detailed oral hearing unless the case is covered by the provisions relating to obligatory conditions as explained hereunder.
(b) As per sub Rule (1-A) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules it is mandatory to conduct detailed oral hearing provided for in Rule 14(3) to 14(23) of the CCA Rules, if it is proposed, after considering the representation of the delinquent employee if:
(i) it is proposed to impose the penalty of withholding of increments of pay and the same is likely to affect the amount of pension payable to the delinquent employee; or
(ii) it is proposed to impose the penalty of withholding of increments of pay for a period exceeding three years; or
(iii) it is proposed to impose the penalty of withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period.
103. Does not the imposition of penalty without oral hearing amount to denial of reasonable opportunity or violation of the principles of natural justice?
State of Punjab Vs. Nirmal Singh [JT2007(10)SC31, (2007)8SCC108] is a case based on Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970. In this case, the individual had challenged the award of minor penalty without providing him personal hearing. Rejecting his submission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“6. Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 deals with the review. A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that there is no provision of personal hearing in regard to inflicting minor penalties. The Rule contemplates a personal hearing only when the Disciplinary Authority proposes to impose any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 5 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses. Admittedly, by an order dated 20.10.2003, the respondent was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error in setting aside the order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Competent Authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.”
[it needs to be noted that in Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970, dealing with the Procedure for imposing minor penalty, provision corresponding to sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules was not available. Therefore, detailed oral hearing was not mandatory, even for withholding of increment with cumulative effect.]
Post a Comment