Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus SURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR on 22 March 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
\ I
•
A
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. SURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR MARCH 22, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
. . ...
Discipli1.wry authority-Power to withhold a"ears of salary for the period of suspe11sion:-lJiscipli11ary proceedings-Suspension of delinquent pending inquiiy-Charges proved-Punishment-Stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding payment of a"ears of salary for the period· under suspensio1t-Civi/ Cowt inteifering with order withholding payment of a1Tears of salary-Held, _the 1Ules indicate withholding of payment of an-ears of salary as one of the modes of punishment-Discipli-nary authority rightly exercised its power-Civil Court has no jurisdiction to substitute the punislunent intposed by disciplinary authority-Civil Court is not a cowt of appeal in civil suits .
.D
• CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7022 of 1996. • . From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.93 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No .. 208 of 1993.
Manoj Swarup and Girish Chandra for ' ~ -1 th"e Appellants. • N.N. Jauhri and S.K. ·Sabharwal for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court . . was delivered : Leave granted.
F
· The only question is : whether the disciplinary authority could with-· G hold payment .of arrears of salary for the period of suspension from September 5, 1986 to April 2, 1987, namely, the date of suspension till the date of passing of the final f!rders ?
The respondent was a conductor. A charge-sheet was issued imput-ing misconduct in not issuing the tickets. The Enquiry Officer, though had H 817
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 3 S.C.R.
A not recorded finding of proof of misconduct, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the Enquiry Officer's report and has given reasons in support of the disagreement, recorded a finding as to how the charges have been proved by giving opportunity to the respondent to show why the punishment of stoppage of increments and also with-holding payments of B [arrears of salary ][as ][punishment. The respondent had submitted his ][ex-]planation. On consideration thereof, the disciplinary authority imposed stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and also with-held payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, it was reversed and the suit was decreed. In S.A. No.208/93 dated November 25, 1993, the High Court of Punjab &
C Haryana confirmed the appellate decree.
The appellate decree envisages confirmation of the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect but interfered with the order with-hold-ing payment of arrears of salary as a measure of punishment. The appellate Court held that the disciplinary authority had no power to impose the said punishment.
D
We have heard counsel on both sides. It is an admitted position that the charges have been proved. Once the charges have been proved, it is settled law that the disciplinary authority is empowered to impose ap-E propriate punishment. The rule indicates with-holding of payment of ar-rears of salary as one of the modes of punishment. Under these circumstances, the disciplinary authority had rightly exercised its power. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The Civil Court is not a court of appeal in Civil suits.
F
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
R.P.
,+
!"."