Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SWARAN SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1996
BENCH:
K.RAMASWAMY, G.T.NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
made on October 20, 1993 in RSA No. 2076 of 1993 dismissing
the in limine.
The only question is : whether the appellant is
empowered to impose 15% cut in the pension of the respondent
as a measure of penalty. Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the respondent and pending proceedings, he
retired from service. The disciplinary authority passed the
order before his superannuation on February 15, 1987 holding
that misconduct on his part was established; however, a
minor penalty was imposed. But the higher authority, on
appeal, gave notice to the respondent and disagreed with the
disciplinary authoritys’s conclusion and imposed 15% cut in
the pension payable to the respondent by proceedings dated
March 30, 1989. The respondent filed a civil suit. The trial
Court decreed the suit. On appeal, it was confirmed and the
second appeal, as stated earlier, was dismissed in limine.
It is seen that notice was issued by this Court by
order dated April 19, 1996 confined to the question whether
the power of the authority to withhold whole or any part of
the pension is correct or not. It is seen that Rule 15 (v)
(c) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1970 provides that "subject to the provisions of Rule
14, a Government employee may prefer an appeal against all
or any of the orders and while disposing of the appeal the
appellate authority has power to order (c) reducing or
withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension
admissible to him under the rules". It is contended by the
learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 11 casts duty
to supply enquiry report along with the penalty which has
not been supplied. Therefore, the order is violative of Rule
11 of the Rules. We find no force in the contention. It is
seen that the impugned order came to be passed on appeal by
the appellate authority. We have already held that it has
the power and authority to impose cut in the pension. It is
not a case where the primary authority imposed any penalty
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
without supplying copy of the report and action was taken
thereon. Under these circumstances, though Rule 11 provides
for the supply of copy of the enquiry report, the infraction
thereof makes no difference in view of the facts in this
case.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and
decree of all the courts stand set aside. As a result, the
suit stands dismissed. No costs.