SUKHDARSHAN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1132 · Decided: 03-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1132
1132
SUKHDARSHAN SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 811-812 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law: Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1970 – In the instant case, appellant was appointed as a
clerk by the State Transport Department – Two FIRs were lodged
against him and in connection with these cases he was suspended
w.e.f 02.09.1986 – After appellant’s conviction, on 13.03.2003, an
order of termination was issued against the appellant – Appellate
authority set aside the termination order, however, directed that
appellant would not be entitled to any salary for the period of
suspension and it would be termed as dies non – This led to institution
of civil suit in which it was held that once termination had been set
aside, appellant is entitled to get salary, except for the period during
which appellant had undergone imprisonment – On appeal, held:
The manner in which the appellate authority must exercise its
appellate jurisdiction is delineated in r.19 – r.5 provides for the
penalties with which the employee can be visited with – The
punishment as it is so described by the appellate authority viz.,
depriving the salary and placing the employee under dies non, do
not appear to be penalties provided in r.5 – Thus the order of
appellate authority was beyond the power prescribed under the
rules – In regard to the period when appellant was kept out of
service – r.15(v)(f) contemplates that when there is a dismissal,
removal, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower service and
there is an order of reinstatement, the authority is to pass an order
as to whether the period from the date of suspension till the date of
his reinstatement, is to be treated as a period spent on duty for any
purpose – An order being passed by the appellate authority finding
the termination of employee to be illegal and leaves it there, it would
not ipso facto inevitably follow that the employee will become entitled
to claim the salary for the entire period consequent upon his being
found to be entitled to reinstatement – This is a matter for the
authority to decide – This exercise to be undertaken and concluded
within three months.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 5 provides for the penalties with which the
employee can be visited with. The scheme of the Rules further is
that an appeal can be carried against certain orders which are
mentioned in Rule 15. The manner in which the appellate
authority must exercise its appellate jurisdiction is delineated in
Rule 19. The punishment as it is so described by the appellate
authority viz., depriving the salary and placing the employee under
dies non, do not appear to be penalties provided in Rule 5. It was
open to the appellate authority to enhance the punishment. The
order, in other words, dated 29.01.2009 to the extent it became
the subject matter of the civil suit would appear to be beyond the
power of the appellate authority. To that extent, the appellant
may be justified in calling into question the direction to deny him
the salary by the appellate authority and treating it as dies non as
a punishment. It is not a penalty contemplated in law. [Paras 9,
10][1139-D-H; 1140-A-B]
2. The question would arise as to what is to be done with
regard to the period when the appellant was kept out of service
as a result of the proceedings against him. This, in turn, must be
broadly divided into two periods. An employee may be kept out
of service initially by way of an order of suspension. The
disciplinary proceedings may culminate in an order of removal or
dismissal or compulsory retirement. The order of suspension
would then come to an end and it would merge in the order of
removal inter alia. After the order of removal inter alia till the
order of reinstatement based on relief granted to the employee,
the appellant would be out of service. [Para 11][1140-C-E]
3. Rule 15(v)(f) indeed contemplates that when there is a
dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower
service inter alia and there is an order of reinstatement, the
authority is to pass an order as to whether the period from the
date of suspension or from the date of his dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement till the date of his reinstatement, is to be
treated as a period spent on duty for any purpose. This gives a
clear indication that

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