84 No650f2010 1 1 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ekkek CWP Noe165r0f2010 Date of Decisionl 0622010 ekk RanjitSingh Petitioner VS FCI and others Respondents j ReAk r CORAM 2 HONBLE MReJUSTICE SURYA KANT ekkRk 0 U 1eWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment2 110 2ro be referred to the Reportersor not2 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest2 kkkek 0 Presentl Mr PS Sekhon Advocate for the petitioner I Mr RajeshGarg Advocate for the respondents Z kkkk 2 SURYA KANT Je I 111 The petitionerseeks quashingofthe order dated 112d Z November 2007 Annexure P31wherebythe penaltyof reversion CO to the post ofAGDl in the lowest scale ofpay ofAGDl till his 7 retuement and recovery ofRsl50000 has beennposed upon Z him He also assails the order dated 27th May 2009 IAnnexure P41 dismissinghis appealagainst the abovestated order of punishment 21 Brief exordium of the facts are that the petitioner while workingas a ManagerIDIin the Food Corporationof India was served with a chargesheetdated 14th August 2006 uzter alia allegingthat he along with one Ram SinghAGDl and Lila Dhar AGIDl while workingat FSD Faridkot during the year Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 Nol650f2010 2 1 Y 200405 and 200506 failed to maintain absolute integrityand devotion to duty and in connlvance with each other misappropriated 139682a242 quintalsnceraw GradeA valuing Rs1 1 5936300 310 Pursuant to the report dated 31052007 1Annexure 1 Pll submitted by the enqulry offlcer holdingthat the charges r levelled againsthim stood provedthe petitionerwas served with 0 0 a copy of the enquiry report and after consideringhis I C5 explanationlobjections the disciplinary authority vide the I impugnedorder datedt12d Noveniber 2007 4nnexure P31 Z reverted him to the post of AGIDI in the lowest parscale of the tr said post till his retirement with a further direction to recover I Rs1 5000000 from him The petitioner preferred a t0 Z departmentalappealwhich has also been turned downoy the m AppellateAuthorityvide its order dated 27052009 IAnnexure 17 P4 Z tl 141 The aggrievedpetitionerhas approachedthis Court 51 The petitionerhas meanwhile retired from servlce on attainingthe age of superannuationThe petitionerhas though made a feeble attempt to seek exoneration on merits however havingregardto the scope of interference by a Writ court in the finding of facts returned in a domestic enquiry no senous attemptcould be made by his learned counsel to question the factual findings Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 Q N01650f2010 3 61 Learned counsel for the petitioner however vehernentlyurged that the impugnedordersl have led to the impositionof three penaltieson the petitionercomprisingmajor as well as minor in nature whereas the Regulationspermitthe DisciplinaryAuthorityto imposeonly one penalty He relies upon the Honlole SupremeCourt decision ln Union of India 8s r Anr v SC Parashar 120061 6 SCC 167 to support his 0 contention 0 I 710 Counsel for the on the other 0 Z hand urges that recovery of loss caused to the Employer Z coupledwith other penaltydoes not amount to double jeopardy 2 as ruled by the Hon101e Supreme Court lIl Depot Manaqer C APSRT Corporation ve NeRamulu and another 11997111 SCC I He pointsout that the abovecited decision was not noticed Z by their Lordshipsin the later decision in SC Parashars case Qo supral He urgedthat the Corporationhas rightlyadjustedthe 7 Z recoverable amount againstthe petitionersGratuityand such a deduction is permissiblein law as ruled by the Honble Supreme Court in Secretaru ONGC Ltde and another vse VU Warrier 1200515 SCC 245 181 Havingheard learned counsel for the partiesatsome lengthI do not find any apparent conflict in the two decisions rendered in NRamulus and the SC Parashars cases Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 No165of2010 4 1 1r 91 In NeRamulus Isupral the delinquentdriver was subjectedto disciplinaryaction on the allegationof rash and negligentdrivingand was ordered to be removed from service besides recovery of Rs5001 towards the damagecaused by him to the Corporationsbus The delinquentdriver raised an Industrial Disputeand the Labour Court thoughheld that the tr Managementhad established negligenceon the part of the 0 delinquentdriver yet it set aside the order of removal from 0 I servlce after concludingthat he was doubly punished The 0 I Labour Court award was partiallymodifled by the learned Single Z Judge of the High Court at the behest of the Corporationwho directed the reinstatement of the delinquentdriver with 500Io C backwagesonly and the amount of damagesawarded to the I Management was ordered to be deducted from the arrears of pay Z 0 It appears that the Management as well as the delinquentdriver m took up the matter before the Division Bench who modified the W2 Z order of the learned SingleJudgeand held the delinquentdriver tl entitled for full backwageswhich order was further challenged before the Honble SupremeCourt Settingaside the Division Bench order and after minutely examining the Service Regulationsit was held that1 xxx XXX XXX Xxx XXX In order words the only order that survived was the reimbursement of the loss occasioned to the appellanton account of the act of delinquentdriver It is true that that has been sholun to be a penalty under Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 No65 of2010 5 e Regulatwn81v1of the RegulationsBut the penaltyfor the act of negligence was removalfrom sennC The Explanaon to Requlation 8 however enumerates vanous penalties which are not to be treated as penaltiesand one of them ts as clause 151thereofsaust The penaltuof recovenI frompau of the whole or part of anu pecunianl loss caused to the Corporatn bu an emplouees neqliqence or breach of orders mau be unposedln addition to anu other penaltu wich mali be 1 intecl ln respect of the same act of neqliqenceOT breach of orders This clause clearly says th the 0 penaltyof recoveringloss caused to the Management 0 under Regulaon shall not preclude the I lnanaqelhentfrom imposinqanu other penaltu The C5 High Court was therore wrong in thinkingthat this I was a case of double jeopardy We think that the order passedby the leamed SingleJudgewas eminentlyjust cuzdfa and the Division Bench of the High Coun r should not have interfered with that order I 1Emphasisappliedl Xxx XXX Xxx XXX XXX Z f 101 It may be seen that there existed an express provision 7 Z lIl the Service Regulationswhich enabled the Competent a Authorityto deduct the amount of damagefrom the delinquent employeeindependentof its power to imposeanother penaltyon that employee 111 In SC Parashars case the delinquentOfflcer was a DeputyCommandant in CRPF who was chargesheetedon the allegations that he unauthorisedlymisused a new Gypsy caused serious accident of the said vehicle ln which the driver of the Gypsysuffered serious injuries and yet he left the vehicle Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 1 No650f2010 6 1 V unattended as well as the injureddriver in a unconsclous state and also did not inform the Headquartersabout the accident The disciplinaryproceedingswere conducted in accordance with the Central Civil Services IConductlRules 1964 and finally penaltyof I reduction to mlnlmum of the time scale of pay for a period of 3 years with cumulative effect including loss of a C senioritlyand iil penalty of 25Io of the loss of Rs7434 1 89 0 incurred to the Government due to damageto the Gypsy1 e 0 I Rs185857 was imposed Havingheld that the pena was t5 I imposedin violation of the 1964 Rules as only a mlnor penalty Z could be imposed on the delinquentofficer the High Court restored the seniorityof the delinquentofficer from the date his t junior was promotedwith all the consequentialbenefits On an appealby the Union of India the SupremeCourt considered the Z questionas to whether in terms of the provisionsof 1964 Rules f11 the penaltyimposedon the delinquentofflcer was permissible lIl em Z law or not2 121 Rule 11 of the CCS 1964 Rules providesthe following 61 penaltieSl PENALTIES The followingpenalties may for good and sufcient reasons and as hereincer providedbe osed on a Government servant namelyle Minor penalties Iil Censures Iiil Withholdingofpromotion Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 11 No5of2010 7 Iiiil Recoveryfromhis pay of the whole or pan of any pecuniaryloss caused by hi7n to the Govemment by negligence or breach oforder Iiiijlalreduction to a lower stagein the timescale ofpay for a periodnot exceeding3 years without cumulative effectand not adverselyaHectinghis pension XlX XXX XXXX Ivj providedfor in clause IiIal redudion to a lower stage ln the timescale of pay for a specifiedperiod with fwther directions as to whether or not the Cvernment servant will earn increments ofpay du 1 theperiodof such reduction and whether on the expiry t of such period the reduction will or will not have the effectofpostponing thlture increments of hispay 0 0 113 With reference to the nature of penaltiesimposedon I the delinquentofficer purportedlyunder Rule 11 reproduced t5 I above the Honble SupremeCourt held as followsl Z Xxx XXX XXX Xxx Xxx 2 The penaltyimposedupon the respondent lS an amalgamof nunor penaltu and maior penaltli The I respondenthas been inflictedwith three penaltieslIll Z reduction to the minimum of the timemscaleofpay for a periodof three uears with cumulative effect 12jloss of m seniorituand 131recovenl of25Ioofthe loss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs7434189 ie m7 Z Rs 1858547 on account of damageto the Gypsyin 18 Ieighteenlequal monthly instalments Whereas reducon oftimescaleofpay with aimulave effectis a mCZlOr penalt within the mea of clause 1v1of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules loss of senioru and recovenl of amount would come within the purview of nunor penaltu as envisagedby clause liiOand li101 thereof The DisciplinaryAuthority therore ln our oplnlon acted illeqallu and without iurisdictionin imposinq both nunor and maiorpenaltiesbu the same order Such a course ofaction could not Izavebeen taken in law 33 Emphasisappliedl XXX XXX Xxx XXX 19CX Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 No650f2010 e8 1 4 114 Having taken note of the fact that the disciplinary authorily never lntendedto imposea minor penalty on the delinquentofflcer the Apex Court modified the order passedby the HighCourt anc directed as followsl rr We therere in modificationof the order of the High Court that the Iounishmentwhich could n have been osed upon the respondentherein was reduction of pay for the period of three years 0 ulith cumulative effectand thus if his case lS 0 considered for promotionajZerthe said period no I 5 furtherdirection is requiredto be issued We set I aside the direction oftheHighCourt to the effectl Z The petitionershall be enlitled to the seniority on the basis of DPC which was held on 2 07 04 1987 when his immediate junior was promod to the rank of Seconn Comrnand r The petitionershall also be entled to all consequenalbends which stood denied due I topunishmentoflossofseniority 1 and direct that thepunishmentshall be reduction of Z pay to the minimum of the time scale ofpay for a m periodof three years with cumulative effect 7 1151 As may be seen from Rule 11 of the CCS 1964 Rules Z Recoveryfrom his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniaryloss caused by an employ ls one of the prescribedpenaltyIminorl unlike in case of Ne Ramulus case supral where the Rules enabled the disciplinaryauthorityto recover the loss of damage caused by the delinquentemployeeindependentof the penalty which may be imposedon the basis of proven misconduct Both the decisions are thus founded upon the construction of the Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1A 92 No650f2010 9 statutoryRules which was the subjectrnatter of consideration and do not contradict each other 16 Advertingto the case 111 hand it is indeed not ln disputethat the disciplinaryactlon againstthe petitionerwas initiated under the FCI StafORegulations1971 Regulation54 thereof prescribesthe followingpenalties i C 54 PenaltieSe 0 Ntwithstandinganythingcontained in any other 0 regulationand without prejudiceto such action to C5 which an employeemay become liable under any other I regulationor kzw for the time being tn force the followingpenaltiesmay lforgoodand sulcient reasons Z and as hereinaj2erprovidedlbe imposedon any employeesofthe Corporaon tr MINOR PENALTIES I ij Censur Z iil Withholdingofhis promotionl m iiil Recoueryfrom his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniaryloss caused by him to the Corporation 7 Z by negligence or breach or orders ivllal Reduction to a lower stage in the time sca of pay for a periodnot excee 3 years without cumulate eHectand not adverselyeffectinghis penSlOYL V1 withholdingofincrementsOfPaYe MAJOR PENALTIES lJ Save provided for lrl RegulationIiIal above reduction to a lower stage in the time scale ofpay for a specifiedperiod with furtherdirections as to whether or not the employeeof the Corporation will earn ements of pay du the periodof Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 1 Nol650f2010 10 Vi such reduction and whether on the expinjofsuch period the reductn luill or will not have the effectofpostponingthe futuretncrements of his pa Vl Reduction to a lower timscale of 7ay or post which shall ordinarilybe a bar to the promotionof the employee to the time scale ofpay orpostfrom which he was reduced with or without further directions regardingconditions of restoration to 1 the postfrom whz the employeeof Corporatn was reduced and his seniorityand pay on such 0 restoration to thal post 0 I Vll Compulsory retirement 0 vm Removal from servlce which shall not be I forfuture Employment under the Corporation Z 1Xv Dismissalfrom service which shall ordinarilybe a CC for ture employment under the Corporation n I 171 The Explana8onto Regulation54 excludes certain Z actions from the ambit of penaltieswithin the meaningof these m Regulations to the extent of I dischargeof an employeefor his 2 Z failure to pass 811 examination iil compulsoryretirement of an Qm under the Rules 1iiil termination or reversion to a lower category of an employeeappointedon probation Iivl dischargeof an employee on retrenchment for want of vacancy vl termination of services as per the contract or agreement 1vil reverslon of an employee for want of vacancy and iil replacementof the services of an employeewho has been borrowed from other organisation Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document l r4 94 Vo5 of2010 1181 The Exclusion clause thus does not say that the pecuniaryloss caused by an employee to the Corporationcan be recovered in addition to the impositionof one of the penalty defined under Regulation54 The fact of the matter is that the penaltiescontained ln Regulation54 are pari materia to those included in Rule 11 of CCS Rules 1964 1 191 Since the provisionconsidered lIl Ne Ramulus case 0 1supralhad no similaritywith the provisionsamalgamated in 0 I Parashars case 1supral and the Regulations under C5 I consideration 111the instant case have a very close proximitywith Z those interpretedlIl SC Parashars case Isupral the ratio 2 decidendi of the later decision will hold the fleld and need to be C followed if so required Z 1201 0 This is an admitted fact that by virtue of the 00 impugnedorders followingthree penaltieshave been imposedon 7 the petitionerl Z Ll 111 His rank has been reduced from ManagerIDIto AG4IDl 21 He has been placedin the lowest scale of pay as AG41D1till his retirement 131 Recoveryof Rs150000 has also been imposed on him Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 95 1 N0165 of2010 12 211 In the context of Regulation 54 of the 1971 Regulationsthe penaltiesimposedon the petitioner is an amalgamof major and minor penalties His reduction to the lovver post is a majorpenaltyIclauseIvill while reduction to the lowest stage 111 the time scale with a direction that he will not earn increments till retirement is another majorpenaltyIClause 1 r vll the recovery of part of the pecuniaryloss caused by the 0 petitionerand his coielinquent employeels a minor penalty 0 I IClauseliiill t5 I 1221 Followingthe dictum in SC Parashars case supral Z there appears to be no escape but to hold that the disciplinary authorityacted illegally and without jurisdiction 111 lmposlng I both major and minor penaltieson the petitionerby the same order Since the chargeslevelled againstthe petitionerwere of Z gravenature and a regulardepartmentalenquirywas held it 1S Qo obvious that the disciplinaryauthoritynever intended to impose W2 Z minor penaltyon him 231 As a result of the above discussion the writ petition1S allowed ln partethe impugnedpunishmentorder to the extent of impositionof minor penaltyof recovery of Rs 150000 from the petitioner 1S hereby set aside while the impugnedorderlsl lmposlng two majorpenaltiesare upheld Since the recovery amount has alreadybeen deducted from the Gratuity at the time of the petitionersretirement the respondentsare directed to Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 96 Nol65 of2010 13 r refund the recovered amount to him within a periodof rnonths from the date of receiptof a certified copy of this order failingwhich the petitionershall be entitled to interest 7Io pa on the said amount 1241 Since the minor penaltyof recovery of Rs15000000 m imposedon the petitionerhas been set aside the allied question as to whether or not such recovery can be effected from the 0 0 Gratuityneed not be gone lnto by this Court I C5 1251 Ordered accordingl Dasti I 0601202010 KANTI Z vishalshonkcll JUDGE 4 C Z QO 7 Z L Dl e pV 4V C 61 tP Radhika 2014.04.25 14: 54 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document