AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
“1.To quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this OA) with all consequential benefits.
2.To fix the pension and pensionary benefits on the basis of last pay drawn and difference as a result of reduction in pension and pensionary benefits is liable to be refunded back to the applicant in shape of arrears along with interest @12% per annum from the date of due till the actual date of payment.
3.Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4.Cost of the present case.”
The facts of the case are that a punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on the applicant vide order dated 14.08.2015 while he was working as Head Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) under the respondents. While the applicant was undergoing the punishment, second penalty of reduction of pay by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed on him vide order dated 26.08.2016. A third punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the applicant vide order dated 16.03.2017 and the applicant was released from service. Aggrieved with the implementation of the second penalty, the applicant represented to the respondents on 21.01.2019. The respondents rejected his representation vide order dated 28.02.2019. Hence, this OA.
The applicant’s contention is that he had already earned increment in July 2016, i.e., before imposition of second penalty vide order dated 26.08.2016 and he stood retired compulsorily with effect from 16.03.2017, i.e., imposition of third penalty and, therefore, the second penalty could not have been given effect to.
Per contra, the respondents contend that the second penalty was effective from 26.08.2016 itself, i.e., the date of its imposition and it had no bearing with the next increment due on 01.07.2017.
We have heard both the parties. During the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant additionally submitted that the second penalty could not have been imposed during the currency of the first penalty. He further averred that in terms of the Master Circular No. 66 the second penalty could not have been imposed in a manner to affect the pension of the applicant without holding an enquiry as it has the effect of permanently reducing the quantum of the applicant’s pension entitlement.
To begin with, it would be apposite to refer to the penalties specified under rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Rules, 1968:
“6.Penalties : The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Railway servant, namely:-
Minor Penalties –
(i)Censure;
(ii)Withholding of his promotion for a specified period;
(iii)Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government or Railway Administration by negligence or breach of orders;
(iii-a) Withholding of the Privilege Passes or Privilege Ticket Orders or both;
(iii-b) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension;
(iv)Withholding of increments of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period this will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay;
Major Penalties –
(v)Save as provided for in clause (iii-b) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay;
(vi)Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post, or service, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Railway servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service;
(vii)Compulsory retirement;
(viii)Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or Railway Administration;
(ix)Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or Railway Administration:”
(emphasis supplied)
It is evident from the rule 6 quoted above that all three penalties imposed upon the applicant were major penalties; the first two were imposed in terms of rule 6(v) and the third penalty was imposed in terms of rule 6(vii).
An objection raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the first penalty could not have been imposed during the currency of the first penalty. We are unable to subscribe to this argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant for two reasons. First, no rule or guidelines have been produced before us in support of his averment. Second, if we assume that the subsequent penalty cannot be imposed while the earlier penalty is in force, what would happen if the subsequent penalty is of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal from service; it would be illogical to conclude that such compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal must await till the expiry of earlier penalty imposed upon the delinquent employee. If two penalties have been imposed after due process, the delinquent employee must suffer both the penalties and it cannot be that the second penalty must be enforced after the first penalty has completed its course unless it is so mentioned in the order imposing the second penalty, in our opinion.
The other objection raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the second penalty could not have been imposed on the applicant without holding an enquiry as it would have the effect of permanently affecting the applicant’s pension adversely. Admittedly, no enquiry was held while imposing the second penalty. However, a perusal of the order dated 26.08.2016 imposing the second penalty reveals that no enquiry was held because the applicant accepted the charges. In view of this position, we find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and the Master Circular No. 66 can be of no aid to the applicant.
The applicant’s third objection highlighted by learned counsel for the applicant is that the second penalty was imposed vide order dated 26.08.2016 but it remained unimplemented and it could not have been implemented at the time of preparing pension papers as a consequence of the third penalty of compulsory retirement imposed vide order dated 16.03.2017 as the next increment would have become due on 01.07.2017. This objection also has no force as the second penalty was implementable from the date of its imposition, i.e., 26.08.2016 and it was for ‘reduction to three stages below in the same time scale of pay’ which has no rational nexus with the increment earned on 1st July of the year.
In conclusion, the applicant has failed to make out a case for the reliefs prayed for.
In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit.
Associated MAs also stand disposed of.
Parties shall bear their own costs.