SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Rita Kumari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board and Mr. Amit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 29.08.2006 contained in Annexure-13 wherein punishment of withholding one increment on permanent basis has been inflicted upon the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was alleged to be absent on 12.06.1995 and 14.06.1995 for that a notice was issued and the petitioner effectively replied the said notice and the authorities concerned have passed the impugned order by which the punishment of withholding one increment on permanent basis has been passed which is a major punishment. He further submits that Bihar and Orissa Sub-ordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 does not prescribe the punishment which has been inflicted upon the petitioner. He submits that the rules say only withholding of increment whereas, punishment has been inflicted on permanent basis. On interpretation of this rule, he submits that the punishment is major in nature and for which the enquiry is necessary under Rule-55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1935. To buttress his argument, he relies on the judgment rendered in the case of "Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab"? reported in 1991 (Supp.)1 SCC 504. Paragraph no.4 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: "4.Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, (sic stoppage) of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal."? ;