TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant in 42 Bn. of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He, in the month of December, 1992, was acting as Officer-in-charge of DAGOs in Delhi in connection with 53rd CRPF anniversary parade which was to be held during the period December, 1992 and January, 1993. He was given a new Maruti `Gypsy' for performing official duties. He allegedly drove the said Maruti unauthorisedly and at a very high speed beyond his jurisdiction and met with a serious accident when the said vehicle collided with a stationary truck between Manesar and Delhi on National Highway No.8. The driver of the said Gypsy L/Nk Anand Singh suffered serious injuries on his person. The respondent, however, left the vehicle unattended. He also left the said driver in an uncon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon the respondent, the counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India contended before the High Court that the same was imposed in terms of clause (a) of sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules (CCS Rules). The High Court, while refusing to go into the relevancy or otherwise of the material brought on record in the departmental proceeding found that penalty was imposed in violation of the said Rule on the premise that sub-Rule (iii)(a) of Rule 11 provides only for a minor penalty and thus in terms thereof reduction of pay for a period of three years should not have been directed to be effected with cumulative effect. Consequently, it was directed : The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority on the basis of DPC which was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the Respondent has been proved. The High Court also did not go into the said question. The respondent has not questioned before us that part of the order of the High Court. The only question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether in terms of the rules the penalty imposed on the respondent was permissible in law. The relevant provision of Rule 11 of CCS Rules reads thus : PENALTIES The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :- Minor Penalties (i) censures; (ii) withholding of promotion; (iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioning of a provision in an order may be held to be irrelevant if it is found that the requisite ingredients thereof were available on records for passing the same. We may further notice that the High Court proceeded on the basis that the penalty imposed upon him was a major penalty. The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to the tune of ₹ 74,341.89p., i.e., ₹ 18,585.47p. on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen) equal m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result of which, he was deprived of the monetary benefit of one increment for one year only. The penalty by way of stoppage of one increment for one year was without any future effect. In other words, the appellant's increment for one was stopped and such stoppage of increment will have no effect whatsoever on his seniority. Accordingly, the Board acted illegally and most arbitrarily in placing the juniors of the appellant above him in the seniority list and/or confirming the appellant in the post with effect from Dec.1, 1969, that is, long after the date of confirmation of the said respondents Nos.2 to 19. The question of seniority has nothing to do with the penalty that was imposed upon the appellant. It is apparent that for the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
