KULWANT SINGH GILL versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 426 · Decided: 13-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
A 
KULWANT SINGH GILL 
t-
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 
B 
[M.H. KANIA, K.N. SAIKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) 
Rules, 1970: Rules 5(iv), 5(v), 8 and 9-Penalties -Withholding of 
increments with cumulative effect-Whether amounts to major penalty 
-Procedure to be followed in such cases. 
c 
The appellant, while working as Inspector, Food and Supplies, 
was found to have purchased sub-standard wheat and hence charge-
sheeted for misconduct. He submitted his explanation. Though Rules 8 
and 9 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 
envisage the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct, the 
D 
disciplinary authority, only on considering the explanation, found that 
that the appellant committed a minor misconduct. Accordingly, an 
order was passed for stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 
Appellant filed a suit for declaration that the said order imposed a 
major penalty which was illegal in the absence of an enquiry under 
Rules 8 and 9. The Trial Court granted a decree invalidating the said 
E 
order. 
On appeal, the District Court confirmed the decree. However, on 
second appeal, the High Court held that the penalty imposed was a 
minor penalty within the meaning of Rules S(iv) of the Rules obviating 
the need to make regular enquiry. Aggrieved, the appellant has prefer-
F 
red this appeal, by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without 
any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule S(iv) of the 
G 
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. But when 
penalty was imposed withholding two Increments i.e. for two years with 
cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments 
earned by the employee was 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 
H of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insi-
-~·
426 
K.S. GILL v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 
427 
dious 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. 
2. Rule S(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to 
impose penalty of withholding incremenis of pay with cumulative effect 
except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. 
Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it 
wonld be per se void. Considering from this a11gle the impugned order 
would come within the meaning of Rule S(v) of the Rules, and the impo-
sition of major penalty without enquiry is per se illegal. 
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., ILR 1985 2 P & H 193, 
overruled. 
3. Rules 8 and 9 admittedly envisage, on denial of the charge by 
the delinquent officer, to conduct an enquiry giving reasonable 
opportunity to the presenting officer as well as the delinquent officer to 
lead evidence in support of the charge and in rebuttal thereof, giving 
adequate opportunity io the delinquent officer to. cross-examine the 
witnesses produced by the Department and to examine witnesses if 
intended on his behalf and to place his version; consideration thereof by 
the enquiry officer, if the disciplinary authority himself is not the 
enquiry officer. A report of the enquiry in that behalf is to be placed 
before the disciplinary authority who then would consider it in the 
manner prescribed and pass an appropriate order as per the procedure 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
in vogue nuder the Rules. The gamut of tMs procedure was not g~me 
through. Therefore, the issuance of the notice and consideration of the ex-
planation is not a procedure in accordance with Rules 8 and 9. 
F 
4. The Trial Court rightly granted the decree, and it is restored. 
The judgment and the decree of the High Court is vitiated by manifest 
illegality and is set aside. At this distance of time it is not expedient to 
direct an enquiry under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 2960 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.1986 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.S .. A. No. 3204 of 1984. 
G 
H 
428 
SUPREME COUR

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