Allahabad High Court

Nandlal Ram vs Committee Of Management Of District ... on 25 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146623
 
Reserved on 19.08.2025
 
Delivered on 25.08.2025
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16448 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Nandlal Ram
 
Respondent :- Committee Of Management Of District Co-Operative Bank Ltd And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava,Sudhanshu Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. It is admitted case of rival parties that disciplinary proceedings against petitioner are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations, 1975).

2. Petitioner, a Clerk/ Cashier with Respondent-Bank, was served with a charge sheet that he has committed various instances of procedural irregularities. A reply was submitted to charge sheet and an inquiry report dated 17.01.2023 was submitted. Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 23.03.2023 and by impugned order dated 20.11.2023 on proved charge a penalty was awarded for withholding of one increment with cumulative effect.

3. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Krishna Mohan Misra, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that no major penalty can be imposed upon an employee taking recourse to the provisions of Regulations, 1975 without seeking prior approval of Institutional Service Board in terms of Regulation 87 of Regulations, 1975. He further submitted that a penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and he placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, para 4 thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so fails Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the 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 of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious 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. The words are the skin to the language which if pealed off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., I.L.R. 1985 2 P & H. 193, P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are withhold with or without cumulative effect the Government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently with expressly stating so. This preposterous consequences cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments 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 would be per se void. considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal.

4. Per contra, Sri Kunwar Bahadur Srivastava and Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Advocates for respondents, submitted that in Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (Rules, 1970) were under consideration whereas in the present case Regulations, 1975 are applicable and Regulation 84(v) thereof, being relevant, is mentioned hereinafter:

(v) The appointing authority or person authorised by him while passing orders for stoppage of increment shall state the period for which it is stopped and whether it shall have effect of postponing future increments or promotion.

5. Learned counsel further submits that withholding of increment which is minor punishment also includes if increment is stopped for a certain period with cumulative effect. Learned counsel also submitted that even the submission of learned Senior Advocate is accepted in the present case, a proper inquiry is conducted under Regulation 85 of Regulations, 1975.

6. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

7. Learned Senior Advocate has placed heavy reliance on Kulwant Singh Gill (supra). However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents, sub-clause (v) of Regulation 84 makes a different provision in comparison to provisions of which are subject matter in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra).

8. Proviso to Regulation 84(iv)(a) provides that no penalty under sub-clause (e), (f) or (g) of clause (i) shall be imposed without recourse to disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, to impose a penalty as provided under Clause (a) censure; (b) withholding of increment; (c) fine on an employee of Category IV; (d) recovery from pay or security deposit to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the co-operative society by the employees conduct, it is not necessary to take recourse of proper disciplinary proceedings.

9. On perusal of records available, a submission that disciplinary proceedings were not undertaken as provided under Regulation 85, is contrary to record since an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who has issued charge sheet, petitioner submitted reply to it and thereafter Inquiry Officer submitted a report. Only on ground that inquiry report is columnwise, would not make a case that no inquiry report was submitted and subsequently Disciplinary Authority has issued show cause notice and on basis of inquiry report and reply to show cause notice, punishment was awarded. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings, as provided under Regulation 85 was conducted.

10. The bar provided in Regulation 87 is limited to a case where penalty imposed is under sub-clause (e), (f) and (g) of Regulation 84(i) where prior concurrence of Board is required. However, as referred above according to sub-clause (v) of Regulation 84 of Regulations, 1975 punishment of withholding of increment also include stoppage of increment with cumulative effect as well as punishment was awarded after taking recourse to complete disciplinary proceedings, the prayer to quash the order of punishment has no legal basis. The facts of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) is distinguishable since aforesaid sub-clause is not exist in Rules, 1970 as well as now after amendment in Rules, 1976, major and minor punishments are clearly defined.

11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.08.2025