Indradeep vs State Of Jharkhand

Deepak Roshan, J

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying  for  quashing  and  setting-aside  the  order  dated  23.09.2015  passed by respondent no.5 whereby three increments of petitioner for the year 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been stopped and the salary of the petitioner for the  period  of  13.12.2009  to  04.02.2012  and  benefit  of  3rd MACP has  not been paid to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the punishment order indicates forfeiture of one increment, further increment should not have been deducted.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order  indicates  three  punishments  i.e.  (i)  punishment  of  censure  (ii)  non- payment of one increment with non-cumulative effect and (iii) he will not be  entitled  for  any  salary  from  20.11.2009  to  12.12.2009  and  till  the  date of suspension which appears to have been never revoked before 02.02.2012,  as such  in  view  of  the  punishment  no.  (iii)  the increment  has rightly been deducted.

From  record  it  appears  that  the  petitioner  was  imposed  punishment vide order dated 02.02.2012 wherein one of the punishments was non- payment of any salary etc. during 20.11.2009 to 12.12.2009 and till the date of suspension. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the issue of deduction of increment has been explained.

From the impugned order it is clear that petitioner would not be entitled for any amount till the date of suspension. The said impugned order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4378 of 2017 however  the  same  was  not interfered and  his  case  was  dismissed  by  this Court vide order dated 30.07.2019; as such now the legality of this impugned order is not in question.

Thus, now the only issue involved in this writ  application is that of Annexure-4, whereby increments have been deducted as claimed by the petitioner  is  justified or  not  as  per  the  order  of  punishment.  From  perusal of Annexure-1 i.e. order of punishment dated 02.02.2012 vis. a vis. the impugned  order  (Annexure-4)  it  appears  that  no  amount  shall  be  paid  to the petitioner from 20.11.2009 to 12.12.2009 & during the period of suspension, he will not get any amount which includes increment also.

Further from Annexure-4 it appears that since the petitioner was not entitled for any salary during the suspension period, increment was also not  given to him  during the period between 2010 to 2012. One increment as per the impugned order was kept at abeyance from 01.07.2012 and similarly 2nd and 3rd increment were also kept at abeyance which were  the effects of the impugned order of punishment dated 02.02.2012; as such, no calculation  error  appears  from  Annexure-4.  Accordingly,  no  relief  can  be granted to the petitioner.

The instant writ application stands rejected.

Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed off.