Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 294 1996 SCALE (3)611
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The only question is: whether the disciplinary
authority could withhold payment of arrears of salary for
the period of suspension from September 5, 1986 to April 2,
1987, namely, the date of suspension till the date of
passing of the final orders?
The respondent was a conductor. A chargesheet was
issued imputing misconduct in not issuing the tickets. The
Enquiry Officer, though had not recorded finding of proof of
misconduct, the disciplinary authority did not agree with
the Enquiry Officer’s report and has given reasons in
support of the disagreement, recorded a finding as to how
the charges have been proved by giving opportunity to the
respondent to show why the punishment of stoppage of
increments and also with-holding payments of arrears of
salary as punishment. The respondent had submitted his
explanation. On consideration thereof, the disciplinary
authority imposed stoppage of three annual increments with
cumulative effect and also with-held payment of arrears of
salary for the suspension period. The trial Court dismissed
the suit. On appeal, it was reversed and the suit was
decreed. In S.A. No.208/93 dated November 25, 1993, the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana confirmed the appellate decree.
The appellate decree envisages confirmation of the
stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect but
interfered with the order of with-holding payment of arrears
of salary as a measure of punishment. The appellate Court
held that the disciplinary authority had no power to impose
the said punishment.
We have heard counsel on both sides. It is an admitted
position that the charges have been proved. Once the charges
have been proved, it is settled law that the disciplinary
authority is empowered to impose appropriate punishment. The
rule indicates with-holding of payment of arrears of salary
as one of the modes of punishment. Under these
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
circumstances, the disciplinary authority had rightly
exercised its power. The civil Court had no jurisdiction to
substitute the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority. The civil Court is not a court of appeal in civil
suits.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands
dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.