TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has preferred these appeals, questioning the correctness of the two orders dated 4th August, 2003 and 19th January, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, in a writ petition filed by one of its employees' (the respondent herein), and the review application filed by the Corporation respectively. By the former order, the High Court has set aside order dated 19th December, 1989 passed by the Managing Director, in his capacity as the disciplinary authority of the Corporation, imposing a penalty on the respondent in the form of recovery of an amount equivalent to the monetary loss suffered by the Corporation and stoppage of three increments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9th December, 1989, he directed the recovery of ₹ 16,903.41 from the salary of the respondent at 20% per month and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order by way of a writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution mainly on the ground that the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect being a major penalty, it could not be imposed without holding a regular departmental enquiry as per the procedure laid down for imposition of a major penalty. The plea found favour with the High Court. The High Court was of the view that as per the Rules/Regulations, the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was a major penalty and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant Rules and Regulations or principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend etc. or that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. All these principles have been highlighted in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora and Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank Ors. 6. Thus, the short question that arises for consideration is whether in the context of the Regulations governing the service conditions of the respondent, the recovery of the aforementioned amount and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and if so, the order of punishment is vitiated on any of the grounds noted above, warranting interference by the Court? 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f orders if within ₹ 50/- (b)withholding increment for specific period (c) stoppage of promotion (d) reduction to a lower post or lower level pay (e) termination of service (f) removal (g) discharge (h) dismissal (i) disqualifying the incumbent from any employment in the Agro Ind. Corpn. Appealable Appealable Appealable Appealable Appealable Appealable Appealable Appealable Appealable 8. A bare reading of the scheme of the afore-extracted Regulations would show that there is a clear demarcation of quantum of punishment between the minor lapses, delinquencies and acts of misconduct. It is evident that having regard to the nature of acts of omission and commission, the punishment prescribed for minor la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h December, 1989, directing recovery of loss of ₹ 16903.41 and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, is a major penalty, clearly envisaging a regular enquiry before punishing the respondent. Since admittedly this procedure was not followed, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that imposition of the impugned penalty without holding enquiry was illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
