Delhi High Court
R.S. Yadav vs Indian Institute Of Technology on 3 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993) IIILLJ 206 Del
Author: S Jain
Bench: S Jain
JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has been working in the Indian Institute of Technology, hereinafter referred to as IIT since 2.7.1964 challenged the legality, validity, propriety and correctness of the Order Nos. I1TD/ESTT.1 1/84/5691, dated 25/27th June, 1984, 1ITD/EST. 11/85/2008, dated 19.3.85 issued by the order and in the name of the director of the respondent whereby the respondent imposed a penalty on the petitioner withholding two increments with cumulative effect with immediate effect.
2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order imposing penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect the respondent has acted without jurisdiction. The other plea taken in the writ petition is regarding the promotion, but the counsel for the petitioner does not press the same, as according to him the petitioner has already been given promotion.
3. Now, the question arises whether withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty or major penalty and if it is major penalty, whether the respondent has complied with the procedure in holding an enquiry in the misconduct after giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee in the manner provided by rules.
4. My attention has been drawn towards the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1990 II CLR 686 : 1990 (61) FLR 635 which lays down that withholding of increment of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the provisions of minor penalties. 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 or pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from the 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. According to the Supreme Court this penalty is within the purview of major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal.
5. In view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court on this point, withholding of two increments with cumulative effect without holding a regular enquiry in the matter is per se illegal and therefore this writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. However, the respondent is at liberty to hold a regular enquiry in this regard in the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in accordance with the rules and law. No order as to costs.
