AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Tewari, J.—This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of both the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant whereby he had challenged the imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.
Brief facts are that the appellant was found to have remained unauthorizedly absent for two years. Charge sheet was issued, reply was filed and after considering the same, the impugned order was passed.
As regards the ground relating to the treatment of the leave period of the appellant, counsel for the appellant states that he gives up the said relief.
No question of law was proposed when this appeal was filed. Today, counsel for the appellant has argued that the substantial question of law which arises in this case is whether the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty, and if so, whether it could be imposed without holding any inquiry ?
In Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1990 (6) SLR 73, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India held that the order of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. The said view has been followed by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar, 1991 (3) SLR 196.
Counsel for the respondents has, however, argued that the above point was not taken by the appellant earlier.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the question raised is a pure question of law, which has been conclusively answered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill''s case (supra). Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/appellant is decreed.
No costs.