Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 2010 Date of decision : June 29, 2010 The Jind Central Co-operative Bank Ltd and another ....Appellants versus Jagdish Rai ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants having remained un-successful in both the courts below have preferred the instant second appeal. Jagdish Rai respondent filed suit against the appellants. Plaintiff-respondent was promoted by the defendants from the post of Junior Accountant to the post of Senior Accountant with effect from 23.3.1999. As Junior Accountant his basic pay was Rs 8000/- in the pay scale of Rs 5500- 9900. On promotion as Senior Accountant, he come in pay scale of Rs 6500-9900 and therefore, his basic pay was to be fixed at Rs 8100/- w.e.f. 23.3.1999 i.e. date of promotion. However, the defendants vide order dated 19.8.2000 and notice dated 12.12.2000 fixed the basic pay of the plaintiff at Rs 7700/- and ordered recovery of Rs 38,828/-. The plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 2010 -2- challenged the same in the suit. Vide order dated 24.11.1982, plaintiff's two increments had been stopped without cumulative effect and on his representation, the defendants vide order dated 27.6.1988 reduced the penalty to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. However, defendants alleged that two increments of the plaintiff had been stopped with cumulative effect and order dated 27.6.1988 reducing the penalty to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was void as plaintiff's appeal had already been rejected on 15.2.1985. The defendants accordingly refixed the plaintiff's pay. The plaintiff's version is that the penalty stood reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and therefore, he was entitled to basic pay of Rs 8100/- with effect from 23.3.1999. Defendants pleaded that after rejection of plaintiff's appeal vide order dated 15.2.1985, plaintiff obtained order dated 27.6.1988 in connivance with officials and the said order of reduction of penalty is illegal. The defendants accordingly pleaded that pay of the plaintiff has been rightly fixed as Rs 7700/- and the recovery has been rightly ordered from him. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendants stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 2010 -3- punishment of stoppage of two increments of the plaintiff was with cumulative effect and since plaintiff's appeal against the said punishment order dated 24.11.1982 stood rejected vide order dated 15.2.1985, subsequent order dated 27.6.1988 reducing the punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is illegal. The contention cannot be accepted. Vide order dated 24.11.1982, punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed on the plaintiff but the order did not specify that the said stoppage of two increments of the plaintiff was with cumulative effect. On the contrary, since regular inquiry was not held before imposing the said punishment, stoppage of increments of the plaintiff with cumulative effect (amounting to major penalty) could not be ordered. Even otherwise when the order did not specify that the stoppage of increments of the plaintiff was with cumulative effect, it could not be presumed that the said stoppage of increments of the plaintiff was with cumulative effect. Moreover, vide order dated 27.6.1988 passed by the defendants themselves, the said penalty was specifically reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The defendant in the written statement pleaded that said order dated 27.6.1988 reducing the penalty is illegal. However, defendants never challenged the said order passed in the year 1988 till the filing of the suit by the plaintiff in the year 2000. Consequently, the said order cannot be presumed to be illegal and attained finality having not been challenged. On the contrary the said order was passed by defendants themselves and therefore, the defendants cannot plead that the said order was illegal. Consequently, impugned order dated 19.8.2000 and notice dated 12.12.2000 challenged by the plaintiff in the suit have been rightly held to be illegal and null and void. There is no illegality in the impugned Regular Second Appeal No. 1246 of 2010 -4- judgments of the courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) June 29, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'