Service Law: Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 – In the instant case, appellant was appointed as a clerk by the State Transport Department – Two FIRs were lodged against him and in connection with these cases he was suspended w.e.f 02.09.1986 – After appellant’s conviction, on 13.03.2003, an order of termination was issued against the appellant – Appellate authority set aside the termination order, however, directed that appellant would not be entitled to any salary for the period of suspension and it would be termed as dies non – This led to institution of civil suit in which it was held that once termination had been set aside, appellant is entitled to get salary, except for the period during which appellant had undergone imprisonment – On appeal, held: The manner in which the appellate authority must exercise its appellate jurisdiction is delineated in r.19 – r.5 provides for the penalties with which the employee can be visited with – The punishment as it is so described by the appellate authority viz., depriving the salary and placing the employee under dies non, do not appear to be penalties provided in r.5 – Thus the order of appellate authority was beyond the power prescribed under the rules – In regard to the period when appellant was kept out of service – r.15(v)(f) contemplates that when there is a dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower service and there is an order of reinstatement, the authority is to pass an order as to whether the period from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement, is to be treated as a period spent on duty for any purpose – An order being passed by the appellate authority finding the termination of employee to be illegal and leaves it there, it would not ipso facto inevitably follow that the employee will become entitled to claim the salary for the entire period consequent upon his being found to be entitled to reinstatement – This is a matter for the authority to decide – This exercise to be undertaken and concluded within three months.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Rule 5 provides for the penalties with which the employee can be visited with. The scheme of the Rules further is that an appeal can be carried against certain orders which are mentioned in Rule 15. The manner in which the appellate authority must exercise its appellate jurisdiction is delineated in Rule 19. The punishment as it is so described by the appellate authority viz., depriving the salary and placing the employee under dies non, do not appear to be penalties provided in Rule 5. It was open to the appellate authority to enhance the punishment. The order, in other words, dated 29.01.2009 to the extent it became the subject matter of the civil suit would appear to be beyond the power of the appellate authority. To that extent, the appellant may be justified in calling into question the direction to deny him the salary by the appellate authority and treating it as dies non as a punishment. It is not a penalty contemplated in law. [Paras 9, 10][1139-D-H; 1140-A-B]
2. The question would arise as to what is to be done with regard to the period when the appellant was kept out of service as a result of the proceedings against him. This, in turn, must be broadly divided into two periods. An employee may be kept out of service initially by way of an order of suspension. The disciplinary proceedings may culminate in an order of removal or dismissal or compulsory retirement. The order of suspension would then come to an end and it would merge in the order of removal inter alia. After the order of removal inter alia till the order of reinstatement based on relief granted to the employee, the appellant would be out of service. [Para 11][1140-C-E]
3. Rule 15(v)(f) indeed contemplates that when there is a dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower service inter alia and there is an order of reinstatement, the authority is to pass an order as to whether the period from the date of suspension or from the date of his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement till the date of his reinstatement, is to be treated as a period spent on duty for any purpose. This gives a clear indication that upon an order being passed by the appellate authority finding the termination of employee to be illegal and leaves it there, it would not ipso facto inevitably follow that the employee will become entitled to claim the salary for the entire period consequent upon his being found to be entitled to reinstatement. This is a matter for the authority to decide. [Para 15][1146-D-F]
4. The decree of the trial Court as confirmed by the first appellate Court is to be sustained but the first appellate authority in proceeding to impose the condition that the appellant will not be entitled to any salary for the period and that it will be treated as dies non cannot be sustained. However, the further direction by the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate authority that the appellant will be entitled to the salary for the period he was kept out of service also cannot be sustained. Insofar as the High Court has not noticed these aspects while allowing the appeal and dismissing the review petition, the impugned judgment also cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and the judgment passed by the first appellate Court is modified and the decree passed by the trial Court directing payment of salary to the appellant for the period that he was kept out of service is set aside. [Paras 16, 17][1146-G-H; 1147-A-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.