UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus S.C. PARASHAR

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
S.C. PARASHAR 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, I964-Rule I I (iii), (iii)(a), 
(v)-Government servant failing to maintain absolute devotion to duty and C 
acting in unbecoming manner-Imposition of major and minor penalties-
reduction to the minimum of time-scale of pay for three years with cumulative 
effect, loss of seniority and penalty for the loss incurred-Permissibility of-
Held: Imposition of both major and minor penalties by the same order is not 
permissible-Such act of Disciplinary Authority is illegal and without D 
_ -1, 
jurisdiction-Hence, penalty to be confined to reduction to minimum of time 
scale of pay for period of three years with cumulative effect. 
Practice and procedure: 
Concession made by counsel-Contrary to statutory provisions-Binding E 
nature of-Held: Cannot bind the parties. 
Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of provision in an order-Effect 
of, when requisite ingredients available for passing the order-Held: Is 
irrelevant. 
F 
Respondent-Deputy Commandant of Central Reserve Police Force 
was found guilty under the provisions of the Central Civil Services 
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 for failing to maintain absolute devotion to duty 
and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. In terms 
of the Rules, Disciplinary Authority imposed three penalties-reduction to 
the minimum of time scale of pay for a period of three years with G 
.. 
cumulative effect, loss of seniority and recovery of 25% of the loss incurred 
by the Government. Respondent challenged the punishment order. High 
Court held that Rule 1 l(iii)(a) provides for minor penalty and in terms 
thereof reduction of pay for three years should not have been directed to 
529 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A be effected with cumulative effect. It directed that he would be entitled to 
seniority on basis of DPC held when his immediate junior was promoted 
and all consequential benefits denied to him for loss of seniority. Hence, 
the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I.I. The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam 
of minor penalty and major penalty. Respondent has been inflicted with 
three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay 
for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; 
C and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government on 
account of damage to the Gypsy. Whereas redui:tion of time-scale of pay 
with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) 
of Rule 11 of the the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, loss of 
seniority and recovery of amount would come within the purview of minor 
penalty, as envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. Therefore, the 
D Disciplinary Authority, acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing 
both minor and major penalties by the same ordt!r. Such a course of action 
could not have been taken in law. [534-D-E-F) 
1.2. The concession of the counsel appearing for the appellant before 
the High Court was apparently erroneous. Wrong concession made by a 
E counsel before the court cannot bind the parties when statutory provisions 
clearly provide otherwise. (534-G-H) 
Union of India and Ors. v. Mohan/al Likumal Punjabi and Ors., (2004) 
3 sec 628, relied on. 
F 
1.3. Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision in an order 
'" 
may be held to be irrelevant if it is found that the requisite ingredients 
thereof were available on records for passing the same. [534-CJ 
1.4. The penalty imposed upon the respondent, would be reduction 
to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with 
G cumulative effect. Respondent is entitled to be considered for promotion 
after a period of three years. However, it seems he has since been promoted 
., 
to the rank of Commandant. (535-F( 
r 
Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh & 
H Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1673, relied on. 
\ r 
U.0.1. v. S.C. PARASHAR [SINHA . .l.] 
531 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1267 of2006. A 
From the Final Order dated 11.03.2003 of the Delhi High Court in 
C.W. P. No. 3992 of 1997. 
A. Sharan, ASG, Mrs. Sunita Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the 
Appellant. 
B 
Anupam Lal Das for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
The responde

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