AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 21.03.2011 anti 22.10.2011 impugned at Annexures-G and J to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking restoration of the increment of the petitioner and to grant all consequential benefits.
The petitioner was working as a Superintendent in the respondent-Corporation. On the charge that the petitioner was negligent and had caused delay in implementation of the Court order, which had resulted in the beneficiary of the said order initiating the contempt proceedings against the highly placed officials of the respondent-Corporation, the action was initiated and on holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charge, the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed.
While assailing the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the action initiated against the petitioner is mainly by relying on the Circular issued by the Government dated 22.04.2010 where under a provision has been made to take action against the officials who did not implement the Court orders. It is contended that the same was a circumstance where fine was imposed and in that light, the Circular came to be issued. It is therefore contended that in the instant case, not only the Circular was not applicable, even otherwise the petitioner could not have been held responsible for the delay in implementing the order and therefore, the punishment imposed is too harsh.
Learned counsel for the respondents would however seek to sustain the order of punishment. It is pointed out that on finding that the petitioner had not implemented the order which resulted in a contempt petition being filed against the respondent-Corporation, the same formed a charge and the domestic enquiry was held. From the finding rendered, it is clear that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and as such the punishment imposed is justified.
In the light of the contentions, insofar as the proceedings as had been initiated against the petitioner, it is clear that a detailed domestic enquiry was held and after providing opportunity to the petitioner to put forth all contentions, a finding of fact was recorded holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. It is based on the said finding, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order imposing the punishment. The Appellate Authority has also taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and confirmed the punishment. Therefore insofar as the finding recorded on that aspect and to hold the petitioner guilty of the misconduct, certainly the said finding of fact would not call for interference in this petition.
However, the issue for consideration is as to whether keeping in view the very nature of the allegation that had been made against the petitioner and was proved in the enquiry, the punishment imposed is justified. It is no doubt borne out from the record that since the order had not been implemented, the contempt proceedings had been initiated against the officials of the respondent-Corporation.
Be that as it may, even if the charge is held to be proved against the petitioner and considering that the petitioner was at the fag end of his service, if the punishment is allowed to remain as a cumulative punishment, the same would affect his terminal benefits as well, which may not be justified.
Hence, keeping all these aspects in view, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the punishment of withholding of two increments to be in effect for a period of two years from the date on which it was imposed and be restored thereafter. At present, it is stated that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation. If that be the position, the restored increment after the period of two years shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the terminal benefits of the petitioner and if any difference amount is payable, the same shall be paid to the petitioner.
The consideration in that regard shall be made by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.