DHARAMPAL ARORA versus PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 22-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHARAMPAL ARORA 
le 
PUNJAB STA TE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 22, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Employee--Suspensionjiwn service on 26.8. 74-Reinstatement in service 
on 25.8.75-Allowed to cross efficiency bar w.e.f 4.10.1976 -Intervening 
period treated as non-duty period-Inquiry-Stoppage of one annual 
increment-Challenge to-Dismissed by trial Court-Affirmed by first 
appellate Court-Second appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal, 
Supreme Court remanded the case to High Court-Setting aside the order 
D of the Courts below, High Court observed that stoppage of annual increment 
with cumulative effect is a major punishment-Besides, it was inflicted without 
holding a regular inquiry-However, consequential benefit denied on 
technical grounds-On appeal, Held: When a particular inquiry .held against 
an incumbent with respect to certain set of allegations and final order passed 
E imposing punishment-If the final order is set aside, the incumbent is entitled 
to all consequential benefits-Hence, the incumbent could not be refused 
substantial relief merely on technical grounds that the date of the order 
imposing punishment was not given while claiming relief/specific re/ief-
Once the final order goes all the orders from the date of the charge-sheet up 
to the date of passing of final order becomes a nullity-Incumbent entitled 
F to all consequential benefits and allowed to cross efficiency bar w.e.f 
4.10.1974. 
Appellant was working as an Assistant Revenue Accountant with the 
Punjab State Electricity Board. He was suspended and later charge-sheeted.· 
Later, he was reinstated in service vide order dated 25.8.1975. The incumbent 
G was due to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 4.10.1974 but he was allowed to cross 
efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.4.1976 treating the intervening period from 4.9.1974 
to 30.9.1975 as a non-duty period. An inquiry was held and an order passed 
on 16.3.1984, whereby his one annu~I grade increment was stopped with 
future effect. Appellant filed a Civil Suit for certain relief. Trial Court 
H 
322 
'__, 
DHARAMPAL ARORA''· PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
323 
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the incumbent filed an app.eal before the A 
Additional District Judge. The first appeal was dismissed by the appellate 
Court. The appellant filed second appeal before the High Court, which was 
dismissed by the High Court in limine. The appeal filed against the order of 
the High Court was allowed by this Court remanding the case to the High 
Court. The matter came up for consideration before the High Court when it B 
formulated following two substantial questions of law: 
(i) as to whether stoppage of annual grade increment with future effect 
is a major punishment and as such proper procedure prescribed under 
Regulation 8of1971 Regulations ought to have been followed and since there 
was violation of the said Regulation, order dated 16.3.1984 imposing penalty C 
is illegal and unsustainable. 
(ii) as to whether order dated 10.10.1980 vide which the appellant had 
been allowed to cross Efficiency Bar with effect from 1.4.1976 instead of 
4.10.1974 is legally unsustainable. 
Answering Question No. 1 in favour of the appellant, suit of the appellant 
stood decreed by the High Court for declaration to the effect that the order 
stopping his one annual grade increment with future effect was declared to 
be illegal and void. However on second question, High Court held that since 
the order dated 10.10.1980 was not assailed by the appellant, no relief could 
D 
be granted. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When a particular inquiry is held against an employee with 
respect to a given set of allegations and the final order of punishment is 
imposed and when the said final order was set aside, the incumbent was entitled F 
for all the consequential benefits. Jn the instant case, the appellant had 
specifically challenged the final order of punishment and also the action of 
the respondent-authorities in denying the claim of crossing the Efficiency 
Bar w.e.f. 4.10.1974 lind the said action was specifically challenged then merely 
because the order of the said action was not mentioned or challenged does G 
not mean t~at the incumbent could be denied the relief of crossing the 
Efficiency Bar w.e.f. 4.10.1974. He could not be refused the substantial relief 
merely on technicalities when the specific claim and relief 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.