Union of India (UOI) vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and Others

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 30-8-2002 in Original Application

No. 1167 of 2001, Pondicherry Administration has filed the above Writ Petition.

One D. Sathiyanarayana, second respondent herein, joined in the Home Department of the Government of Pondicherry on 28-7-82 as Sub

Inspector of Police. He was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police on 14-8-99. While so, according to him, suddenly he was reverted by

order dated 7-7-2000 to the post of Sub Inspector of Police on the findings of a Review Departmental Promotion Committee ( DPC). Therefore,

he approached the Tribunal for quashing of the order dated 7-7-2000 and for direction to the official respondent to promote him to the post of

Inspector of Police with effect from 7-7-2 000, the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted, with all other consequential benefits.

Before the Tribunal, the department has filed a reply stating that the applicant, while working as Sub Inspector of Police, was awarded a minor

penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, on 20-2-1998. Thereafter, DPC held on 9-8-99 and the applicant''s case was

considered for promotion and he was promoted on 14-8-99.

The Tribunal after finding that in view of punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect on 20-2-9 8, the punishment

period should have been reckoned from the date of issue of the order namely, 20-2-98 to 20-2-99 and the department shifted this period as well

by one year, set aside the order dated 7-7-200 0 and allowed his application. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the

Home Department of the Pondicherry Government.

Heard Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Government Advocate for petitioner-Pondicherry Government and Mr. M. Gnanasekar, learned counsel for

contesting 2nd respondent.

It is not in dispute that the second respondent herein suffered punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect on 20-2-98.

It is also not in dispute that it is a minor penalty. The date of increment of the second respondent herein was from 1-2-98. We have already

mentioned that the punishment was imposed only on 20-2-98. The DPC convened a meeting on 9-8-99. Since on the date when increment of the

applicant was due i.e., on 1-2-99 , the DPC considered the applicant''s case and promoted him on 14-8-99 without giving any posting order at

that time. In the meanwhile, the third respondent by name L. Ganesan filed O.A.No. 777/99 challenging the said order of promotion by DPC and

ultimately the said application was allowed. Consequent thereto, the applicant-D. Sathiyanarayana was reverted and posted as Sub Inspector of

Police. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 777/99 dated 5-4-2000 and the common order in O.A.Nos. 1030, 1031 and

1091/99, the DPC, after finding that the second respondent herein was undergoing an operative punishment at that time he was given promotion

and, therefore, justified his reversion. It was explained that the penalty of withholding one increment for one year would arise subsequent to the

date only and therefore the act of withholding of the next increment started from 0 1-02-99, accordingly the Review Departmental Promotion

Committee which met on 30-6-2000 found that he was not eligible to be considered for promotion on 9-8-99. However, another DPC held on

11-9-2000 for subsequent vacancies, considered his case and promoted him on 11-9-20 00 on regular basis.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that by the time the

punishment of withholding of increment was imposed, the proposed increment was sanctioned on 1-2-98 and therefore, the possibility to make the

punishment operative is only with effect from the time he becomes entitled to draw the next increment. Accordingly, the next round of entitlement

accrued i.e., as on 1-2-99 this punishment was imposed which resulted in suffering the punishment with effect from 20-2-99 for a period of one

year thereon. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the punishment should have ended on 31-1 -99 instead the increment due on 1-2-99 was

withheld resulting in ending the punishment on 31-1-2000 is not at all correct. The Tribunal itself finds that earlier date of earning the increment was

1-2-98 and the punishment was subsequently imposed i.e., 20-2-98, therefore by no means the question of suffering punishment of withholding

increments can come up unless the accrual of increment is withheld. As rightly pointed out, the increment that accrued earlier on 1-2-98 cannot be

in any way affected by the subsequently imposed punishment. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the order and the consequential

direction of the Tribunal cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal has also committed an error in ignoring its own finding rendered in O.A.No. 777/99 on 4-5-2000 wherein relying upon the

decision of the supreme Court in The Collector of Thanjavur District v. Rajagopalan and Ors.JT 2000 (3) SC 376-the suffering of punishment by

the applicant for the said period was confirmed and the act of promoting him during that period namely during the period in which he was suffering

the punishment by the department was set aside and therefore the Tribunal in this impugned order cannot say the question of operative period of

punishment in the judgment was nowhere discussed, hence the approach of the Department in the Review Departmental Promotion Committee

cannot be faulted with. On the other hand, the method adopted and procedure followed by DPC is correct.

We are also of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in stating that the punishment period was inadvertently extended to 2 years

which is incorrect and the department rightly fixed the period of punishment only one year it becoming operative as on 1-2-99, and the contrary

finding of the Tribunal is without any merit or basis.

Under these circumstances, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30-8-2002 made in O.A. No. 1167 of 2001 is quashed and

the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.