T.A.Dhanasekaran v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16.07.2008CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.No.10574 of 1999& WPMP No.14961 of 1999T.A.Dhanasekaran..Petitioner Vs.1.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board rep.By its Superintending EngineerVellore Electricity DistributionCircle. Gandhi NagarVellore 6 (Vellore District )2.The Executive Engineer Office of the Executive Engineer /O&MVellore Electricity DistributionCircle, Arcot..RespondentsPrayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the concerned recordsfrom the respondentss, quash the order of the second respondentdated 5.8.1998,bearing Memo No.05/093/Adm.Sr/A.2/F.Confdl/127-2/98imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of stopping the nextincrement for a period of one year with cumulative effect asconfirmed by the order of the first respondent dated 19.3.99bearing Memo No.1139/1244/Admn.5/A1/99.For Petitioner::Mr.Balan HaridossFor Respondents ::Mrs.Yamuna DeviO R D E RThe petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in therespondent Electricity Board. Aggrieved by the order dated5.8.1998 wherein and by which he was imposed with the punishmentof stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Hewas given a show cause notice dated 8.6.1998 alleging that he hascommitted a misconduct of tampering with records. He submitted anexplanation dated 10.7.1988. On the basis of the explanation andthe records available, the second respondent imposed the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment. An appeal was made against the said order before thefirst respondent and the same was rejected by the appellateauthority by an order dated 19.3.1999. 2. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court with thepresent Writ Petition. At the time of admission, the petitionersubmitted to this Court that the issue raised in this WritPetition is squarely covered by the judgment of this courtreported in 1998 Writ Law Reporter page 486 (K.Govindaswamy vs.Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd rep.by its SeniorRegional Manager, Madras 600 086 and another). But however, thepetitioner failed to get any interim order and had suffered thepunishment.3. The only point that is urged by Mr.Balan Haridoss, learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that the TNEB Service Regulationsprovides withholding of increments as a penalty and makes it aminor penalty. It also provides for procedure to impose thepenalty under Regulation 5. When the minor penalty is hedged witha further addition of having cumulative effect, then it partakesthe character of a major penalty. In such cases the respondentsare bound to conduct an elaborate enquiry in terms of the saidRules. 4. In this connection, the learned counsel for thepetitioner drew support from the judgment of this Court in(K.Govindaswamy vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltdrep.by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras 600 086 and another)reported in 1998 Writ Law Reporter page 486. The followingpassage referred to by the counsel found in paragraphs 10 and 11may be usefully extracted below:"10. Mr.N.Kannadasan, learned counsel for therespondents submitted that inasmuch as the punishmentimposed is only stoppage of increment for a period oftwo years with cumulative effect and also treating ofthe period of suspension as suspension, which is minorpunishment and if it is so, as per the procedurecontemplated under Rule 16 of the said Rules, anopportunity to explain the charges alone is sufficientand in this case, the same has been properly compliedwith. However, Mr.Venkataraman, learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that if it is a mere stoppage ofincrement, it would come under the head 'Minorpunishment', but in our case the petitioner was awardeda punishment of stoppage of increment for a period oftwo years with cumulative effect; hence it cannot betermed as a minor punishment as per Rule 16(1) of thesaid Rules and certainly, it is a major punishment underRule 16(2) of the Rules. In support of his contention, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reportedin Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (1994-Volume II-S.C.C.(Labour and Services) page 842). In thesaid decision, their Lordships have concluded thatstoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a majorpenalty and the same cannot be imposed without enquiry.In Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1990-2-L.L.N.Page 1019: 1990(61)F.L.R.Page 635), the Apex Courthas again concluded that directing stoppage of twoincrements with cumulative effect would come within theconcept of major penalty and imposition of suchpunishment without an enquiry would be illegal.Following the said decision of the Apex court,J.Kanakaraj.J., in an identical circumstance wherein thepresent respondent, namely Tamil Nadu Civil SuppliesCorporation was a party, in A.G.Mohammed Jaffar v. TamilNadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.(1992-1-L.L.N.585)has held as follows:"It is clear that only stoppage of increment ismentioned as minor punishment. Where the stoppage ofincrement is continued with cumulative effect for aperiod of two years, it means that two increments earnedby the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty.Dealing with the similar rule, the Supreme Court ofIndia in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1990-IIL.L.N. 101), has pointed out that when stoppage ofincrement is ordered with cumulative effect and theRules are silent on that aspect, it would be deemed as amajor punishment calling for a regular enquiry asprescribed for a major punishment. Following the dictumof the Apex Court, the Writ Petition is allowed and theimpugned order is quashed..."11. In the light of the principles enunciated inthe above mentioned decisions, I am of the view thatwithholding of increments of pay simpliciter without anyhedge over it, certainly comes within the meaning ofRule 16(1)(b) of the said Rules, but when penalty wasimposed withholding two increments, i.e. for two yearswith cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean thatthe two increments earned by the employee was cut off asa measure of penalty for ever in his upward march ofearning higher scale of pay."5. Though the learned counsel says that in that case thoughthis Court was dealing with Rule 16(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu CivilSupplies Corporation Rules, in the present case also there is asimilar rule i.e. Regulation 5, which provides for minor penalty.Therefore, the said judgment applies in four corners to this case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He also drew the attention of this Court the unreported judgmentof this Court in W.A.No.1241 of 2004 dated 18.8.2007 inM.Rajarathinam vs. State Bank of India and another. In the saidjudgment, the Division Bench, after referring to Rule 67(b) of theState Bank of India Officers Service Rules and also afterreferring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant SinghGill vs. State of Punjab (1990 Factories Labour Reports 635) heldthat in the garb of stoppage of increment, if it deprives futureincrement in the scale of pay permanently, it would amount to amajor punishment.6. In the present case, Rule 5(2) provides for withholding ofincrement as a penalty. But in the same Rule with reference to theprocedure, it is stated as follows:"The penalties specified in items (i), (ii), (iv) and(vii) shall be deemed to be minor penalties and thepenalties specified in items (iii), (v), (vi) and (vii)shall be deemed to be major penalties. The penaltiesmentioned in items (v), (vi), (vii) as the case may be ,shall be imposed on a Board employee for violation ofRegulation 25 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity BoardEmployees' Conduct Regulations relating to bigamousmarriage."Admittedly, stoppage of increment is classified as a minor penaltyunder Regulation 5(ii) of the TNEB Staff Regulations.7. The interpretation of a Rule will have to be decided onlydepending upon the Rule position in that organization. Therecannot be any general proposition of law in this matter. In thiscontext, the Supreme Court in its judgment in M.P.STATE AGROINDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD AND ANOTHER VS. JAHAN KHANreported in (2007 ) 10 SCC 88 had observed as follows:"A bare reading of the scheme of the afore-extractedRegulations would show that there is a clear demarcationof quantum of punishment between the minor lapses,delinquencies and acts of misconduct. It is evidentthat having regard to the nature of acts of omission andcommission, the punishment prescribed for minor lapsesand delinquencies, ostensibly not having perpetualeffect,have been made non-appealable in comparison tothe punishment for acts of misconduct, which includerecovery of whole or a part of pecuniary loss, exceedingRs.50 caused to the Corporation, withholding ofincrements for a specific period, termination ofservices, removal etc., which can all be characterisedas major punishments. Precisely for this reason, allpunishments falling in the latter category have beenmade appealable. The perceptive distinction in two sets https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of penalties, in our view, makes it abundantly clearthat the Corporation has treated thepunishments/penalties falling in the first category asminor punishments/penalties and the acts of misconduct,falling in the second category as major penalties. Wemay, however, hasten to add that it cannot be laid as ahard-and-fast rule that stoppage of increments, with orwithout hedge over it, is always to be treated as amajor penalty, necessitating regular enquiry. It woulddepend on the rules and regulations governing theservice conditions of the employee, though ordinarily,in the absence of specific regulations, withholding ofincrements with cumulative effect is treated as a majorpenalty because it has a perpetual effect on the entiretenure of service of the employee." (Emphasis supplied)8. Therefore, in the present case there is statutoryRegulations framed and it provides for a summary procedure inrespect of a punishment regarding withholding of increment. Evenif the minor penalty is hedged with further addition of havingcumulative effect, the Court cannot introduce a new element ofprocedure 'de hors' the Rules.9. The Supreme Court also by its latest judgement inU.P.STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. VS.KAMAL SWAROOP TONDON reportedin (2008) 2 SCC 41 in paragraph 34 observed as follows:"34. It is therefore, clear that so far as minor penaltyis concerned, it is not necessary for the Corporation tofollow detailed and lengthy procedure laid down forimposition of major penalties. In the instant case, theproceedings had been initiated by the appellantCorporation against the respondent employee for recoveryof pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation bynegligence on his part. The proceedings, hence, could beinstituted by issuing notice which was done on13.1.2000. The said action, therefore, could not havebeen held bad or without power, authority orjurisdiction on the part of the Corporation. As we havealready observed earlier, even regular show-cause noticewas served on 31.1.2000 which was also during theemployment of the respondent. The High Court, in ourview, was wrong in quashing the proceedings and settingaside orders dated 24.3.2001 and 26.4.2005. Theimpugned order of the High Court, therefore, deserves tobe set aside." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. In the above said decision, the Supreme Court tookexception to the High Court in interfering with a minor penalty byciting procedural violation.11. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition standsdismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The connectedMiscellaneous Petition is closed.AjrSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Superintending Engineer,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vellore Electricity DistributionCircle. Gandhi Nagar. Vellore 6 (Vellore District )2.The Executive Engineer Office of the Executive Engineer /O&MVellore Electricity DistributionCircle, Arcot+ 1 cc to Mr. V. Yamuna devi Standing Counsel TNEB, Advocate, SRNo.38461+ 1 cc to Mr. Balan Haridos, Advocate, SR No.37698W.P.No.10574 of 1999RSY(CO)SR/29.7.2008