LexPUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus RAJ KUMAR GOEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 171 PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD NOW PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. RAJ KUMAR GOEL (Civil Appeal No. 8366 of 2014) AUGUST 29, 2014 [DIPAK MISRA AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect - Held: In such punishment, annual increments would not be paid during the period and in the sixth year are to be added up to regular A B c annual increment. D Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: When there is a stoppage of five annual increments, the same are not paid during the said period and thereafter in the sixth year, the increments are added E up to the regular annual increment. The employee does not get the arrears. But if the punishment is not one of stoppage of increment simpliciter, the employee loses the benefit in perpetuity and after expiry of five years, he would start earning the increment without any addition F and it would start afresh from the first stage because it is a permanent postponement. It cannot be said that if the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is imposed for a period of five years, increment is .. warranted to be released by the end of the year. [Para 17] G [178-A-C] Ku/want Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 426 : 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504 - relied on. 171 H 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R. A Punjab State and Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya 1983 (2) SLR 410; Ranganath Rai v. State of Bihar 1997 (2) PLJR 421; Uttam Kumar v. Delhi Jal Board 2001 IVAD (Delhi) 166 - approved. B Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. ILR 1985 (2) P&H 193 - refered to. Case Law Reference: 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 426 relied on Para 11 c ILR 1985 (2) P&H 193 referred to Para 12 1983 (2) SLR 410 approved Para 14 2001 IVAD (Delhi) 166 approved Para 15 D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8366 of 2014. From the Judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 in Regular Second Appeal No. 796 of 2012 passed by the High E Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Jayant K. Sud, Chirag Khurana, Jaikirty, Vikash Singh for the appellant. S. Janani, Deepak Goel, Sunando Raha for the F respondent. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment and decree dated 25.07 .2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RS.A. No. 796 of 2012 whereby the High Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Courts H below. PSEB NOW PSPC LTD. v. RAJ KUMAR GOEL 173 [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 3. The broad essential facts which are to be stated for A adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff joined the services of the appellant - Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') on 17 .12.1984 as Lower Division Clerk. As the respondent-plaintiff remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave from 9. 7.1987 for a considerable time, B a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. After following due procedure as envisaged under Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971, the competent authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual increments without c cumulative effect and further the period of absence mentioned in the Show Cause Notice was directed to be treated as non- duty period. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, the respondent filed Suit No. 155 of 2006 for declaration that the D manner in which the said order of punishment was sought to be implemented by the authorities was illegal and absolutely unjustified. It was averred in the plaint that the effect of · stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect should mean that the Board shall release each year's increment before E stoppage of increment in the ensuing year. It is apt to state here that the respondent did not challenge the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority nor did he call in question the quantum of punishment inflicted on him vide. order dated 9.8.2002. 5. The Board entered contest in the suit and explained the position as regards the nature of punishment contending, inter alia, that the effect of an award of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect would mean that increments for period F of five years would be released all together at the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.