SHIV KUMAR SHARMA versus HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CHANDIGARH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 27-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHIV KUMAR SaARMA 
v. 
HARYANA STATE ELECTR!Cifi BOARD, CHANbitiA.RH 
& ORS. 
JULY 21, ~988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MOHON DUTI'; 11.] 
Civil :Services: Confitmaiion-Atthaic rule gMng scope .to 
executive authorities lo act malafiile/iitbilrar:ily-tJives riSe to uhneces" 
sary litigations-High time for Government and authorities to tliilik 
over, 
SeniiJrii)'--'-'-SeniiJriiy has nothing to ilo wiih &ioppage ,t;f ilitn!' 
ment-Such minor pulilshmenl liot ro affetl seliioriiy=Espedaily when 
probation is-tompleteil satisfactorily. 
A 
The ·appeliant Wil!i i1ppoh1ted an Assistllilt Eiiflilll!l!t 110 June to., 
i9ti3 in the Punjab Slate Electricity Board ·oil probation for two years 
which end~d on June .io, 1965. On bii"utcatlon ol PuiiJab Eiectriclly 
Board; tbe service of the appellant was aiiocaleci to iiafylllili state 
Electricity Board. As a te5ult of a diseiplinary proceeding held against 
him in 19611; a minor penalty of stoppage of one ·increment without any E 
future effect was impi>sed ofi the appellant. After expiry .ilfone year, the 
appellant \\·as, however, given the increment. 
By virtue of 8il order dated March 30, i97il; the ajipeliiiiil Jilid 
respondents 2 to· f9 were ci>nflffited as Assistant Engineers; ciass•ii ilil 
satisfactorily completing the probation periild lif lwil years, Thongh the F 
others were confirmed with eifect fiilni Aprii i, i9ii9; the appellant was 
confirmed with effect froni December 1, 1969. Consequently, the appei• 
lant;s name was placed laiit of all the confirmed officers. the appellant 
challenged the said order by way of a writ petition before thl! High 
Court which dismissed the petition. This appeal by special leave ·is 
against the judgment ofthe High Court 
G 
Allowing the appeal; 
HELD: L The peiiaity by way of stoppage of one lntrenient tor 
one year was without any future effect. In other word.S; the appellant's 
increment for one year was stopped and such stoppage ·of increment will H 
621 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
have no effect whatsoever on his seniority. Accordingly, the Electricity 
Board acted illegally and most arbitrarily in placing the juniors of the 
appellant above him in the seniority list and/or confirming the appellant 
in the pQst with effect from December 1, 1969 instead of April 1, 1969. 
Tlie question of seniority has nothing to do with the penalty that was 
imposed upon the appellant. It is apparent that for the same act of 
misconduct, the appellant has been punished twice, that is, first, by the 
stoppage of one increment for one year and, second, by placing him 
below his juniors in the seniority list. [624G-H; 625A] 
2. There is no explanation why the confirmation of the appellant 
was deferred till December 1, 1969. The explanation that after some 
substantive posts had fallen vacant on April 1, 1969, the question of 
confirmation was taken into consideration is not supported by any 
material on record inasmuch as there is nothing to show when these 
posts had fallen vacant. It is difficult to accept that all these posts had 
fallen vacant on the same day, that is, on April 1, 1969. Though the 
vacancies had occurred before that day, the Board did not care to take 
up the question of confirmation for reasons best known to it. While 
there is some necessity for appointing a person in government service on 
probation for a particular period, there may not be any need for con-
firmation of that officer after the completion of the probationary 
period. The 11rchaic rule of confirmation, still in force, gives a scope to 
the executive authorities to act arbitrarily or ma/a fide giving rise to 
unnecessary litigations. It is high time that the Government and other 
authorities should think over the matter and relieve the government 
servants of becoming victims of arbitrary actions. [625H; 626B; 625C-D] 
S. B. Patwardhan & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 
(1977] 3 SCR 775, referred to. 
[Setting aside the High Court judgment and the seniority list, this 
Court directed that a fresh seniority list be prepared within six months 
on the basis of this judgment and maintain the appellant's seniority in 
the post to which he has been promoted in the meantime.] [626D] 
G. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 301 
of 1984 . 
. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.2.1983 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1410 of 1982. 
H 
P.D. Shanna for the Appellant

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