NTPC Limited vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for

Union of India appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

By filing this writ appeal, the appellant has called into question the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No.574 of

2012.

The writ petition was filed challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the appellant inflicting penalty of withholding

of one annual increment without cumulative effect and also providing that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any remuneration for the period of

suspension, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him.

The petitioner was working as a Store Keeper Gradeâ€"I, W-7 in Human Resources Department of the appellant. A charge-sheet dated

22.01.2008 was issued alleging (i) that the petitioner had put advance signature in the Attendance Register for 28th & 29th September, 2007 and (ii)

that he had advised the Editor of “Jahirili Aag†to write against the General Manager of the appellant in the Magazine in order to get good-will

advertisement. The explanation put-forth by the petitioner having not been found satisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In the disciplinary

proceeding, the allegation with regard to the petitioner inviting the Editor to write against the General Manager was not proved. However, the

allegation regarding putting advance signature was established. Finally, the order dated 29.12.2011 was passed by the appellant about which, reference

has already been made in the earlier part of the judgment.

The learned Single Judge upheld the order of imposition of minor penalty. However, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay

remuneration for the period of suspension pending enquiry, other than the subsistence allowance already paid to him within four weeks along with 9%

interest from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. It is against that part of the order by which direction was given by the learned Single

Judge for payment of balance remuneration for the period of suspension that the present writ appeal is filed.

Mr. Bharat submits that for imposition of minor penalty, no full-fledged enquiry by appointing presenting officer and enquiry officer, is required to be

made and only in cases where imposition of major penalty is likely to be imposed, a full-fledged departmental enquiry is required to be initiated. In the

instant case, it was contemplated that charges against the petitioner would lead to a major penalty and therefore, a full-fledged enquiry proceeding was

initiated. However, on due consideration, on completion of the disciplinary proceeding, a minor penalty was imposed.

Drawing attention to Clause 29 (ii) (e) of the Certified Standing Order holding the field, Mr. Bharat submits that since in the instant case, penalty

other than dismissal or removal was imposed, it was incumbent on the part of the disciplinary authority to regulate the period of suspension and the

same was accordingly done. It is submitted that learned Single Judge had committed error of law in holding that since the petitioner was subjected to

minor penalty, the direction not to pay to the petitioner the balance of remuneration during suspension period could not have been passed and if the

same is allowed to stand, it would result in imposition of two “major penalties†to the petitioner simultaneously. He has contended that the order

dated 29.12.2011 does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. It is further

contended that in the instant case, at any rate, no case was made out for grant of interest @ 9% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment.

Mr. Shrivastava supports the order of the learned Single Judge on the reasonings assigned. Further more, he has placed before this Court a

judgment of this Court passed by a learned Single Judge on 29.09.2021 in WP(S) No.5241 of 2021. The learned Single Judge had relied on a judgment

of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Y.S. Sachan v. State of M.P., reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22, wherein a reference to circular dated

03.12.1985 of the Government of India, laying down that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major

penalty finally ends with the imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the employee

concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R. 54-B, was made. It

was also held in the said judgment that the guideline issued by the Central Government for its employees is just and reasonable and it should be

followed by the State Government and its instrumentality.

Mr. Mishra submits that it is a matter between the appellant and the writ petitioner and there is nothing much to offer on his part.

Clause 28(1) of the Certified Standing Order provides for imposition of minor penalties, which are : (a) Censure, (b) Fine, (c) Suspension without

wages for a period not exceeding four days and (d) Stoppage of increment.

Irrespective of the fact that proceeding was drawn up for imposition of major penalty, the petitioner was inflicted with minor penalty with stoppage

of one increment. The petitioner was suspended from 12.11.2007 to 29.12.2011. He was granted subsistence allowance @ 50% up to 11.02.2008 and

thereafter, @ 75% from 12.02.2008 to 29.12.2011.

It is seen that punishment by way of suspension without wages for a maximum period of four days can be imposed as a minor penalty. The

petitioner was kept under suspension for a period of almost four years. When the penalty imposed is stoppage of only one increment, the regulation of

suspension period cannot be more adverse than the penalty imposed, which is what has happened in the instant case. The direction in the order of

penalty not to pay further remuneration for the period of suspension other than the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner, would, in the

facts and circumstances, takes the colour of a penalty. It would appear that it is on that perspective, Circular dated 03.12.1985 was issued by the

Central Government. It is evident that authority has without any application of mind, mechanically has passed such a direction.

In view of what is discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with regard to the order of the learned

Single Judge directing to make payment of remuneration for the period of suspension pending enquiry, other than the subsistence allowance already

paid to him within a period of four weeks. However, we are of the considered opinion that in a case of present nature, where an employee is charged

with putting advance signature in Attendance Register and such charge has been established, it would not be just and proper to award interest on the

amount of remuneration payable. Accordingly, while interfering with the direction to pay interest @ 9%, we make it clear that if the amount directed

to be paid by this order is not paid within a period of four weeks from today, 9% interest will be payable from the date of entitlement till the date of

actual payment.

Writ appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.