RSA No.1215 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1215 of 1987 Date of decision 28.11.2009 The Punjab State and others ... Appellants Versus Ikatar Singh ... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr.Manohar Lal, Addl. AG Punjab . 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The defendant- State of Punjab had approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgement and decree dated 8.9.1986 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge holding that plaintiff- respondent Ikatar Singh who was working as Fitter did not issue any fitness certificate in respect of Bus No. 5432 which was to leave for Jammu and it was not in working condition on account of the fact that 'alternate of the bus was defective'. The bus also had diesel defect. The explanation of the plaintiff- respondent was called vide letter dated 17.12.1980 and in his reply the plaintiff – respondent stated that he had removed the diesel defect and it will remain in starting position for three hours and the bus never showed any defect. It was at 1.35 during night when he finished his duty. With regard to the alternate defect of the bus, he pointed out that he had no electrician who could have performed the job. The General Manager, Punjab Roadways issued a show cause notice under Rule 10(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and RSA No.1215 of 1987 2 Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for brevity 'the Rules') stating that why minor penalty as contemplated by Rule 5(i) to (iv) of the rules be not imposed by stopping two increments with cumulative effect. The imputation of the charges were also issued. The plaintiff- respondent filed his reply but the same was rejected as unsatisfactory. The General Manager recorded the finding that the plaintiff- respondent could not have denied with regard to issuance of certificate when the fitness certificate itself bear his signatures and imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The question of law which arises for determination is as follows: “ Whether punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty which could be imposed only after holding an enquiry ?” The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra and stand concluded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in favour of the plaintiff- respondent in the case of State of Punjab v. Kulwant Singh Gill 1990(6) SLR 73. Their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgement has held as under: “4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv). But sub- rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as RSA No.1215 of 1987 3 punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v) ? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rules 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably means that the two increments earned by the employee were cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time-scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time-scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if pealed off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this RSA No.1215 of 1987 4 perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules................. “ In view of the above, question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff- respondent and against the defendant- State of Punjab. The view taken by the learned Addl. District Judge is upheld although for different reasoning but the fate is the same. (M.M.Kumar) 28.11.2009 Judge okg