caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Om Pal Singh vs Disciplinary Authority on 14 January, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2020
Om Pal Singh
…. Appellant(s)
Versus
Disciplinary Authority & Ors.
…. Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Appellant worked as an officer of Regional Rural
Bank Services with the Muzaffarnagar Kshetriya Gramin
Bank (hereinafter, ‘the Bank’). On 27.05.2003, he was
served with a charge sheet and was asked to submit his
reply within a period of fifteen days. The charges that were
framed against the Appellant are:
1. You did not comply the directions and regulations of
Head Office.
2. You have worked against the interest of Bank/Injurious
work, you was unauthorised absent.
3. You are isolated for the interest of Bank and to your
duties.
1 | Page
2. Yet another charge sheet was issued on 30.05.2003 in
which the following charges were framed:
i. You have violated discipline of bank.
ii. You are accused of misconduct.
iii. You have made effort to diffuse the Bank image and on
the basis of it your worked that injurious to the health
of Bank.
3. The Appellant submitted his reply to the said charge
sheets dated 27.05.2003 and 30.05.2003. The Appellant
was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.07.2003.
He challenged the order of suspension by filing a Writ
Petition which was disposed of with a direction to the bank
to complete the inquiry within four months. The High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad refused to grant reinstatement.
The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report on
23.12.2003 to the Disciplinary Authority. An opportunity
was given to the Appellant to submit his remarks on the
inquiry report. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued
to the Appellant to explain as to why he should not be
dismissed from service. A reply was submitted by the
Appellant on 11.06.2004, which was considered by the
Disciplinary Authority. Another reply was submitted by the
2 | Page
Appellant on 23.06.2004. By an order dated 05.07.2004,
the Appellant was dismissed from service without any
benefits under Regulation No.38 (kha) (4) of Muzaffarnagar
Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Modified) Officer and Staff Services
Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter, ‘the Regulations’).
4. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the order
of dismissal which was not entertained by the High Court.
Liberty was given to the Appellant to file an appeal.
Pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court, the
Appellant submitted an appeal against the order of the
Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service to the
Board of Directors, Muzaffaragar Kshetriya Gramin Bank.
The said appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors by
an order dated 24.03.2005. The Appellant was successful in
his challenge against the order passed by the Board of
Directors dismissing his appeal before the High Court. The
High Court set aside the order passed by the Board of
Directors on 24.03.2005 and remanded the matter back to
the Board of Directors to consider the appeal filed by the
Appellant afresh. The Board of Directors dismissed the
appeal on reconsideration. A Writ Petition filed against the
3 | Page
order of the Board of Directors dismissing the appeal second
time was allowed and the Appellate Authority was directed
to apply its mind to the quantum of punishment and pass a
fresh order. A Sub-Committee was constituted by the Board
of Directors and it was held by the Committee that the
charges of misconduct against the Appellant did not warrant
the penalty of dismissal from service. The Committee
further recommended that the penalty of dismissal be
reviewed and reduced to that of reduction of 15 stages in
payment, lower in time scale of pay for a period of eight
years with a further direction that the Appellant shall not
earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction
and on expiry of such period, the reduction shall have the
effect of postponing the future increments of his pay in
terms of Regulation 39 (1) (b) (i) of Chapter IV of the
Regulations. The recommendation made by the Committee
was accepted by the Board of Directors and the punishment
suggested by the Committee was imposed by the Board of
Directors on 10.09.2012. The Appellant retired on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012.
4 | Page
5. The penalty of reduction of pay of 15 stages was
challenged by the Appellant by filing a Writ Petition. The
High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the
Respondent-Disciplinary Authority to re-examine the matter
afresh. The Disciplinary Authority, in compliance with the
order of the High Court, reconsidered the matter and
reiterated the penalty of reduction of 15 stages lower in
time scale of pay for a period of eight years. Later, the
Disciplinary Authority modified the punishment of reduction
to 10 stages (increments) lower in time scale of pay for a
period of six years with further direction that the officer
shall not earn the increments of pay during the period of
said reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction
shall have the effect of postponing the future increments on
his pay. Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal which was
dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The High Court
upheld the order passed by the Appellate Authority by
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.
6. The High Court was of the opinion that the charges
framed against the Appellant were fully proved and the
imposition of penalty by the order dated 29.10.2015 was
5 | Page
commensurate with the delinquency of the Appellant as the
penalty imposed on the Appellant was not shockingly
disproportionate. The High Court felt that the order dated
29.10.2015 did not warrant any interference.
7. Notice was issued to the Respondent by this Court to
show cause as to why the Appellant shall not be entitled for
salary for the period of suspension from 29.07.2003 to
10.09.2012.
8. Mr. M. Karpaga Vinayagam, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant
shall be entitled for payment of the salary during the period
of his suspension as the order of dismissal was set aside and
substituted by a lesser punishment. According to him, the
principle of ‘no work no pay’ shall not apply to the instant
case. He relied upon several judgments of this Court in
Bank of India v. T. S. Kelawala 1, Syndicate Bank v. K.
Umesh Nayak2, Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v.
Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity
1 (1990) 4 SCC 744
2 (1994) 5 SCC 572
6 | Page
Board3and Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v.
Muddaiah4 in support of his submission.
9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar-I, learned counsel appearing for the
Bank submitted that the Appellant was not exonerated on
the charge. The Disciplinary Authority merely reduced the
penalty from dismissal to reduction in time scale of pay
which does not entitle the Appellant to claim full salary for
the period of suspension. A charged employee shall be
entitled to claim full salary for the period of suspension only
in case the order of penalty is set aside and he is held not
guilty of any of the charges. He relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad And
Others v. B. Karunakar and Others5.
10. The only question that arises for our consideration in
the present appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to
payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. from
29.07.2003 to 10.09.2012. There is no need to reiterate
that the order of dismissal was set aside and the
punishment of reduction in time scale of pay was imposed
3 (1996) 11 SCC 603
4 (2007) 7 SCC 689
5 (1993) 4 SCC 727
7 | Page
on the Appellant. It is clear that the findings of the Inquiry
Officer that the charges against the Appellant were proved
and have not been disturbed. Reduction of the penalty from
dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not
result in exoneration of the Appellant of the charges framed
against him. However, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to
take a decision as to how the period of suspension shall be
treated. While passing the impugned order dated
29.10.2015, the Disciplinary Authority held that the
Appellant shall not be entitled for any payment from
06.07.2004 to 29.08.2012.
11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. 6, this
Court dealt with the issue regarding the entitlement of a
delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential
benefits in all cases of reinstatement as follows:
“17. There is also a misconception that whenever
reinstatement is directed, ‘continuity of service’ and
‘consequential benefits’ should follow, as a matter of
course. The disastrous effect of granting several
promotions as a ‘consequential benefit’ to a person who
has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have
the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the
6 (2007) 2 SCC 433
8 | Page
higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is
seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits
automatically. Whenever courts or Tribunals direct
reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the
facts and circumstances to decide whether ‘continuity of
service’ and/or ‘consequential benefits’ should also be
directed. We may in this behalf refer to the decisions of
this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narasa Goud [2003 (2) SCC
212], A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Kareem [2005 (6) SCC 36]
and R.S.R.T.C. v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta [2005 (7) SCC
406].”
12. It was further held in the said judgment that if
reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser
punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service
nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary
consequence of such reinstatement. This Court went on to
hold that where the misconduct was held to be proved,
reinstatement by itself is a consequential benefit arising
from imposition of a lesser punishment. However, this Court
was of the opinion that award of back wages for the period
when the employee has not worked may amount to
rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the
9 | Page
employer for taking action against the misconduct
committed by the employee, which should be avoided.
13. Following the aforementioned judgment, we are of the
opinion that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in not
paying the salary for the period of suspension cannot be
said to be contrary to law.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is
dismissed.
……………………………J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
..
…………………………J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
New Delhi,
January 14, 2020.
10 | P a g e
Comments