Satya Dev Singh vs U.T. of J&K & Ors.

Sh. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member

This is an Original Application filed by the applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

The applicant is aggrieved of Government Order No. 443-JK(Edu) of 2025 dated 19.05.2025, whereby his claim for restoration/release of one increment withheld/deducted pursuant to Government Order dated 16.04.2019 has been rejected. The applicant seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 as also the penalty imposed vide Government Order No. 163-Edu of 2019 dated 16.04.2019, whereby one increment was deducted/withheld from his pay and a fine of Rs.10,000/- was imposed. The applicant further seeks consequential release of the increment with effect from the date it became due, payment of arrears and consequential revision of his pensionary benefits.

The case of the applicant, as projected in the Original Application, is that he was serving as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Batote, and was entrusted with the responsibility of Overall In-charge of the examination centre. During the relevant period, examinations of Class 10th Bi-annual Private Session, 2018 and Class 12th Bi-annual Private Session, 2018 were being conducted. On 24.03.2018, the Class 10th examination was scheduled at Examination Centre No. 5102. The applicant states that, on account of postponement of the examination and consequent increase in the number of candidates, considerable arrangements were required to be made regarding seating and deployment of ministerial and supervisory staff and that he was occupied with such arrangements.

It is the further case of the applicant that Shri Ravinder Singh was appointed as Superintendent of the concerned examination centre and that, on the morning of 24.03.2018, the said Superintendent went to Police Station, Batote, for collecting the sealed question-paper envelope. According to the applicant, the Superintendent was handed over an envelope containing the English question paper meant for Class 12th. The Superintendent, allegedly in haste and without properly verifying the class mentioned on the envelope, brought the same to the examination hall and opened it, whereafter the question papers were distributed amongst the candidates. The mistake was detected shortly thereafter and the applicant was informed. The matter was immediately brought to the notice of the concerned officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education and necessary corrective steps were taken.

It is not in dispute that, subsequent to the aforesaid incident, the applicant along with other officials was placed under suspension vide Government Order No. 778-Edu of 2018 dated 26.06.2018 and a departmental enquiry was instituted. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report dated 27.08.2018. The applicant has placed considerable reliance upon the said enquiry report, contending that the Enquiry Officer recorded that Shri Ravinder Singh, Superintendent, had admitted his mistake of bringing the wrong question-paper envelope from the Police Station and opening the same due to oversight and hurry. It is also the applicant's case that the Enquiry Officer made favourable observations regarding the applicant's conduct and character and did not attribute to him the actual act of collecting or opening the wrong question-paper envelope.

The enquiry report was thereafter forwarded by the Directorate of School Education, Jammu, to the competent authority vide communication dated 10.09.2018. Despite the enquiry having been completed, the applicant's disciplinary case was not immediately finalized. He was ultimately reinstated vide Government Order No. 163-Edu of 2019 dated 16.04.2019, whereby, apart from other directions, a penalty of deduction/withholding of one increment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-was imposed upon him. The applicant contends that the punishment was imposed notwithstanding the findings contained in the enquiry report and without affording him a specific opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment of permanent deduction of an increment.

The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in relation to the same grievance. The said Original Application came to be disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2024 with a direction to the respondents to treat the O.A. as a representation of the applicant and to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the relevant material, including the reply furnished by the concerned authority under the Right to Information Act. Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered the matter and passed Government Order No. 443-JK(Edu) of 2025 dated 19.05.2025, rejecting the claim of the applicant. The present Original Application has consequently been filed challenging the said order.

The respondents have opposed the claim primarily on the ground that the applicant was the Overall In-charge of the examination process and, therefore, bore responsibility for ensuring proper conduct of the examination. It is submitted that the opening of the wrong question-paper envelope constituted serious negligence and compromised the sanctity and integrity of the examination. The respondents have further pleaded that the material furnished under the RTI Act does not constitute an adjudication or exoneration of the applicant and that the disciplinary authority was competent to independently consider the matter and impose an appropriate penalty. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 29.01.2024, the claim of the applicant was duly considered and rejected by the competent authority and, therefore, no further interference is warranted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the material placed on record. The limited question before this Tribunal is whether the penalty imposed upon the applicant and its subsequent confirmation through the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 suffer from violation of statutory procedure, principles of natural justice, non-consideration of relevant material, or such disproportionality as would warrant interference in judicial review.

In the present case, an important issue arises regarding the true nature and effect of the penalty imposed upon the applicant. The respondents themselves have pleaded that one increment of the applicant was "permanently withheld/deducted" as a measure of penalty. The use of the expression "permanently" is of considerable significance. A temporary withholding of increment for a specified period without cumulative effect stands on a different footing from a punishment which permanently deprives an employee of the benefit of the increment and consequently affects his future pay fixation and pensionary benefits.

The distinction between withholding of increment simpliciter and withholding of increment with cumulative or permanent effect is no longer res integra. In Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the nature of withholding of increments and held that where the effect of withholding is to permanently deprive the employee of the benefit of the increment, the punishment operates in substance as reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay. The principle has subsequently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board/Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Goel, (2014) 15 SCC 748.

The same principle has particular relevance in the context of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. The Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while considering the question of forfeiture of increments, has held that where the effect of withholding or forfeiture of increments is permanent and results in reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale, the punishment assumes the character of a major penalty and the safeguards prescribed for such penalty have to be observed. The decision in Mohammad Amin Mir v. University of Kashmir & Ors., decided on 12.07.2024, is instructive in this regard.

Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, it is apparent that the penalty imposed upon the applicant cannot be treated as a mere temporary withholding of increment. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the increment was permanently withheld/deducted. The applicant has also demonstrated that such deduction has an adverse effect upon his last pay drawn and consequently upon his pensionary benefits. The penalty, therefore, has continuing and permanent financial consequences.

The applicant has specifically pleaded that before imposition of the punishment of deduction of one increment, he was not served with any notice proposing such punishment or afforded an opportunity to submit his representation against the proposed penalty. This assertion assumes significance because the respondents, despite filing a detailed written statement, have not placed before this Tribunal any notice proposing the punishment, any proof of its service upon the applicant, or any representation submitted by him in response thereto. The absence of such material assumes greater importance when the punishment ultimately imposed had permanent consequences.

It is equally significant that the departmental enquiry had already been conducted and an enquiry report had been submitted. The applicant's case is that the Enquiry Officer found that the immediate mistake had been committed by the Superintendent, Shri Ravinder Singh, who had himself admitted that he brought the wrong question-paper envelope from the Police Station and opened the same due to oversight and hurry. The respondents have not specifically disputed that such an admission was made during the enquiry. Their principal contention is that, notwithstanding the immediate act of the Superintendent, the applicant, being Overall In-charge, was responsible for the examination arrangements and was therefore guilty of negligence.

There is, however, a material distinction between supervisory responsibility and individual culpability. The mere fact that an officer is designated as Overall In-charge cannot by itself establish that he committed the particular act constituting the alleged misconduct. The disciplinary authority was required to examine whether the applicant himself had collected the wrong envelope, whether he had opened it, whether he had directed or authorized the Superintendent to open it, whether he had knowledge that the envelope belonged to Class 12th, or whether there was any specific supervisory omission on his part which directly contributed to the incident. A general assertion that the applicant was Overall In-charge cannot substitute a specific finding of culpable negligence.

The material placed before us, particularly the applicant's reliance upon the enquiry report, indicates that the immediate cause of the incident was the action of the Superintendent in collecting and opening the wrong sealed envelope. The Superintendent is stated to have admitted the mistake before the Enquiry Officer. There is no material pointed out by the respondents from the enquiry report establishing that the applicant himself participated in the opening of the wrong question-paper envelope or knowingly permitted the same.

The respondents are undoubtedly correct in contending that a response furnished under the Right to Information Act does not constitute an adjudication of disciplinary guilt and cannot by itself operate as an order of exoneration. However, that submission does not answer the applicant's substantive case. The applicant's principal reliance is upon the departmental enquiry report and the material forming part of the disciplinary proceedings. The RTI response is only relied upon as corroborative material. What was required of the disciplinary authority was to consider the actual enquiry record and record reasons as to why the findings contained therein were being accepted, rejected or modified.

In this connection, the law relating to disagreement by the disciplinary authority with the findings of the Enquiry Officer assumes significance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, held that where the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, particularly where the findings are favourable to the delinquent employee, the principles of natural justice require that the employee be informed of the tentative reasons for such disagreement and be afforded an opportunity to represent against the same before a final decision is taken.

The rationale behind the aforesaid principle is simple and compelling. An employee who has succeeded before the Enquiry Officer cannot be taken by surprise by a final decision of the disciplinary authority holding him guilty on a different reasoning without first being informed of the proposed departure. The opportunity to defend against the original charge is not necessarily an opportunity to defend against the reasons subsequently adopted by the disciplinary authority in disagreement with the Enquiry Officer.

In the present case, the respondents have not demonstrated that the applicant was ever furnished with tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings favourable to him or was given an opportunity to meet such disagreement. If the disciplinary authority intended to hold the applicant responsible notwithstanding the Enquiry Officer's findings regarding the actual role of the Superintendent, it was incumbent upon the authority to communicate its proposed disagreement to the applicant and afford him an opportunity to explain why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be departed from.

The failure to follow such procedure is not a mere technical irregularity. It strikes at the root of the decision-making process. The applicant was entitled to know the precise basis on which the competent authority proposed to attribute culpability to him despite the findings emerging from the enquiry. In the absence of such an opportunity, the applicant was deprived of a meaningful right of defence.

We are also of the considered view that the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 does not cure the original defect. The said order was passed pursuant to the earlier direction of this Tribunal requiring the respondents to consider the applicant's claim and pass a reasoned and speaking order. A speaking order must disclose application of mind to the material and contentions which have a bearing upon the decision. It is not sufficient merely to state that the applicant was Overall In-charge, that an irregularity occurred and that the disciplinary authority was competent to impose punishment.

The impugned order was required to deal specifically with the applicant's contention that the Enquiry Officer had attributed the immediate lapse to the Superintendent; that the applicant had no role in collecting the question-paper envelope from the Police Station; that the Superintendent had admitted his mistake; that the increment was permanently withheld; and that no specific opportunity had been afforded to the applicant before imposition of such permanent penalty. These were not peripheral matters. They went to the root of the applicant's claim.

The failure to address these issues renders the impugned order vulnerable on the ground of non-application of mind. The respondents cannot cure such deficiencies merely by filing a written statement before this Tribunal. An administrative order must stand on the reasons contained in the order itself and cannot ordinarily be supplemented through subsequent pleadings.

The question of proportionality also merits consideration. Even assuming, without conceding, that some supervisory lapse could be attributed to the applicant by virtue of his position as Overall In-charge, the punishment imposed must bear a reasonable relationship to the nature and degree of culpability established against him. The incident undoubtedly constituted a serious lapse in examination administration and the sanctity of examination material is required to be protected. However, the seriousness of the institutional lapse cannot automatically determine the individual punishment without examining the precise role played by each official.

The applicant was not alleged to have deliberately disclosed examination material, manipulated the examination, obtained any personal benefit, or acted with any dishonest intention. The material relied upon by him indicates that the wrong envelope was collected and opened by the Superintendent, who admitted the mistake. The applicant's role was supervisory. The enquiry report is also stated to contain favourable observations regarding his conduct and character. In such circumstances, permanent deprivation of an increment, with consequential effect upon pensionary benefits, is undoubtedly a severe consequence.

The doctrine of proportionality, as recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, requires that the punishment imposed should not be so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to shock the conscience of the Court.

In the present case, the issue of proportionality is further strengthened by the procedural infirmity discussed above. The permanent nature of the punishment, the absence of a demonstrated specific act of the applicant in opening the wrong envelope, the admission of the Superintendent regarding the immediate mistake, the favourable aspects of the enquiry report and the absence of a demonstrated opportunity to respond to the proposed punishment collectively render the penalty unsustainable.

It is also necessary to bear in mind that the applicant is a retired employee. The penalty of permanent deduction of one increment does not end with his retirement; it continues to operate through his pensionary benefits. Thus, an increment which may appear to be a comparatively small component of salary during service can have continuing financial consequences after retirement. The disciplinary authority was therefore required to exercise particular care before imposing a punishment having such enduring consequences.

We are not persuaded by the contention of the respondents that, because the applicant was Overall In-charge, the penalty necessarily followed as a matter of course. There must be a finding, based upon the material on record, that the applicant himself committed negligence of such degree as warranted the punishment imposed upon him.

The record, as presented before us, does not disclose such a clear and legally sustainable finding. Instead, the immediate cause of the incident is traceable to the act of the Superintendent, who admittedly collected and opened the wrong envelope. If the disciplinary authority intended to hold the applicant liable for supervisory negligence notwithstanding these circumstances, the authority was required to record specific reasons identifying the nature of that negligence and its causal connection with the incident. The mere designation of the applicant as Overall In-charge is insufficient.

The respondents have also not been able to demonstrate compliance with the procedural requirement of affording the applicant an opportunity against the proposed permanent withholding of the increment. This omission assumes greater significance because the penalty had the effect of reducing his future pay progression and pension. A penalty with such consequences could not have been imposed by treating it as a simple withholding of increment.

We, therefore, find that the penalty order dated 16.04.2019 suffers from substantive and procedural infirmities. The subsequent Government Order dated 19.05.2025, instead of curing those infirmities, proceeds upon an incomplete appreciation of the material and does not satisfactorily deal with the applicant's principal grounds. The impugned order consequently cannot be sustained.

Once the foundational penalty is found unsustainable, the consequential fine of Rs.10,000/- also cannot survive. The same was imposed as part of the disciplinary punishment and its continuance cannot be justified independently once the penalty order itself is set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the applicant has established a case for interference, as such the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, Government Order No. 443-JK(Edu) of 2025 dated 19.05.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it rejects the applicant's claim for restoration/release of the increment. Government Order No. 163-Edu of 2019 dated 16.04.2019 is also quashed to the extent it imposes upon the applicant the penalty of deduction/withholding of one increment and the consequential fine of Rs.10,000/-.

The respondents are directed to restore the increment which was deducted/withheld from the applicant and to give him the consequential benefit with effect from the date on which the increment became due, subject to verification of the service and pay records. The respondents shall accordingly rework the applicant's last pay drawn and revise his pensionary benefits wherever necessary by taking into account the restored increment.

The consequential arrears arising out of restoration of the increment and revision of pension shall be calculated and released to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the amount of Rs.10,000/- imposed as fine pursuant to the penalty order dated 16.04.2019 has already been recovered from the applicant, the same shall also be refunded to him within the aforesaid period.

The respondents shall make all consequential corrections in the applicant's service and pension records and issue the revised pensionary papers.

It is, however, clarified that the quashing of the aforesaid orders shall not preclude the respondents from taking such action against the applicant, as may be permissible in law, in respect of the misconduct/lapse in question, if otherwise permissible under the applicable rules. In case the respondents propose to proceed against the applicant afresh, the same shall be done strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and after affording the applicant due opportunity of hearing.

The Original Application is accordingly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no other order as to costs.