E. Ramachandran vs The Inspector General of Police

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.—The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2000 as Inspector of Police, in Villupuram District. Before his retirement, three disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in P.R.No. 59/1998, P.R.No. 29/1999 and P.R.No. 92/1999 respectively.

While the disciplinary proceedings in P.R.Nos. 59/1998 and 29/1999 were under Rule 3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the disciplinary proceedings in P.R.No. 92/1999 was under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

In P.R.No. 59/1998, the Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, by an order dated 25.11.1998. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police by an order dated 24.03.1999.

In this regard, the order of the Superintendent of Police, imposing the punishment is extracted hereunder:

"I fully agree with the E.O and the explanation of the delinquent officer is not accepted. He has neglected his basic duty and thus the delinquency is proved. Hence I award him the punishment of postponement of increment for one year w/o cumulative effect."

In fact, the aforesaid order of punishment was written by the Superintendent of Police himself and the original record is produced before this Court for perusal.

However, for the reasons best known to the authorities, the aforesaid order of punishment was not given effect to immediately. Had it been given effect to immediately, it could not have effect on the pension. But the said order was given effect to from 01.10.1999 and the entire increment for one year was recovered from the petitioner for which he has no quarrel. According to the petitioner, neither the punishing authority nor the appellate authority applied their mind as to whether the punishment would have effect on the pension or not.

It is incumbent under Ruling 3 of Fundamental Rules 24 that the punishing authority shall state as to whether the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect would have an effect on the pension or not.

In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. If the punishment was given effect to immediately after the order of punishment, the same could have come to an end before his retirement. Secondly, since it was not stated by the punishing authority or the appellate authority as to whether the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect would have effect on the pension or not as provided under Ruling 3 of FR 24, it should be taken that it was not intended.

I am in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In fact, I have considered similar issue in respect of promotion that after one year from the date of order of punishment the order of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect would not operate against the Government servant for promotion in R.GANESAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME (PRISONS) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS [W.P.No. 10950 of 2012 dated 14.09.2012]. In that case, rule 8(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and more particularly, the proviso thereto was dealt in detail. In this regard, paras 9 to 15 from the said judgment are extracted hereunder:

"9. The petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect by order dated 21.10.2010. Since the next increment fell due on the 1st July of next year, the punishment was given effect to, with effect from 01.07.2011. Therefore, when the Promotion Board met on 23.01.2012, the petitioner was suffering punishment. Based on the said currency of punishment, the petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Assistant Jailor.

Had the punishment order dated 21.10.2010 been given effect to immediately, the punishment could have come to an end before 23.01.2012, i.e., the date on which the Promotion Board met, in which event, the petitioner would not have been deprived of promotion on the ground of currency of punishment.

Furthermore, in such circumstances, proviso 4 to Rule 8(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Surgeons (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is relevant in this regard, states that the recovery of monetary value equivalent to withholding of increment shall be restored to. The said proviso is extracted hereunder:

"Provided also that the recovery of the monetary value equivalent to withholding of increments shall be resorted to only in cases where the punishment of withholding of increment cannot be implemented fully consequent on the promotion of the person to a higher post prior to the imposition of the punishment."

In view of the above extracted proviso which was incorporated in the year 2002, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion on the ground of currency of punishment. In my considered view, the Department shall recover the monetary value equivalent to withholding of increments. But, the Department cannot deny promotion to the petitioner.

Further, the judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 3771, N. Selvarajan and another Vs The Secretary to Government, Finance (Local Fund) Department, Chennai and another, supports the case of the petitioner. In the said judgment, this Court has held in no uncertain terms that a punishment commences as soon as an order imposing the said punishment, is served on the delinquent.

In the instant case, the punishment order dated 21.10.2010 was served on the petitioner on 27.10.2010. Therefore, the punishment commences on 27.10.2010 and it should have come to an end after one year.

Hence, based on both proviso 4 to Rule 8(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and also the judgment of this Court referred to above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed and further, a direction is issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Jailor with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted."

Further, a learned Single Judge has held in the order dated 26.11.2010 in W.P.(MD) No. 13395 of 2009 that after recovering the entire amount pursuant to the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, the Government servant cannot be given reduced pension on the reduced pay scale. The learned Single Judge considered Ruling 3 of FR24 and ultimately held in para 10 as follows:

"10. In this case, the reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for one year was also recovered before the retirement of the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be contended that the petitioner was not drawing the pay of Rs.8100/- on the date of retirement. In my opinion, after permitting the recovery of the punishment before retirement, it is not open to the first respondent to reduce the pension on the reduced pay scale. Further, the second respondent had made it clear in the order of punishment that the punishment will not affect his future pension and even though it has been stated in the letter dated 6.4.1988 that the statement by the competent authority that the order will not affect the pension is inconsistent with the instruction contained in Rule 3(a) of FR 24, having regard to the facts of the case, the said observation made in the letter cannot be made applicable to the petitioner as it is not a case dealing with stoppage of increment."

Besides extracting para 10 of the judgment referred to above, I am of the view that Ruling 3 of FR24 also is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder:

"24(3) (a) Where it is proposed to withhold an increment without cumulative effect in an officer''s pay as a punishment the authority inflicting the punishment should, before the order is actually passed, consider whether it will affect the officer''s pension, and if so, to what extent; if it is decided finally to withhold the increment, it should be made clear in the order that the effect of the punishment on the pension has been considered and that the order is intended to have this effect.

(b) The above orders are not applicable to stoppages at an efficiency bar."

For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the punishment imposed in P.R.No. 59/1998 cannot reduce the pension in any way.

The petitioner is in a better position in the disciplinary proceedings that relates to P.R.No. 29/1999. The appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect by an order dated 24.03.2000. In this regard, the order of the appellate authority is extracted hereunder:

"Thiru E.Ramachandran, Inspector of Police, formerly of Villupuram District now in TNCF/TNCS is awarded a punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year for the following delinquency "For submitting false particulars in Crime No. 373/96 u/s. 147, 148, 341, 294, 323 & 324 IPC while serving as Inspector in Villupuram District, which was returned by J.M. Vasur on 3.12.96 was not resubmitted to the court and further the accused were not arrested till 25.10.97 by then SI Tr.D.Murugesan and neglected his duty is not pulling the SI, which exhibited his inefficient Supervision" in P.R.29/99 of Villupuram District and its effect on pension is considered and not intended.

Accordingly, his pay is reduced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.7,300/- w.e.f. 21.3.2000. As he is due to retire on Superannuation on 30.6.2000, the balance amount which could not be recovered from his pay during his service period will be recovered in Cash and credited to Government."

In the said order, the appellate authority itself applied his mind to Ruling 3 of FR 24 and consciously has stated that the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect is not intended to affect the pension. In view of the same, the respondents shall not pay pension based on the reduced scale placing reliance on the punishment imposed in P.R.No. 29/1999.

It is not in dispute that the punishment order was operated and increment for one year was recovered and he has also no quarrel over the same. His only objection is that as per the appellate order dated 24.03.2000 in P.R.No. 29/1999, the punishment order could not be put against him for computing pensionary benefits.

I am in entire agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly when the authority himself made it clear that they did not intend to affect pension pursuant to the order of punishment.

As far as the punishment under Rule 3(b) is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no serious objection against the said punishment. Therefore, the punishment imposed in P.R.No. 92/1999 would operate against the petitioner in the payment of terminal benefits.

In these circumstances, the first respondent is directed to send the revised proposal for pension, DCRG and other terminal benefits to the second respondent in the light of the judgments, as stated above, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent is directed to authorise the same within a period of three weeks thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.