A subsequent disciplinary penalty may be enforced during an earlier penalty’s currency unless expressly deferred.

The applicant, a Head Travelling Ticket Examiner under the Northern Railway, was first subjected to reduction of pay by two stages in the same time scale for two years with cumulative effect on 14 August 2015.

During the currency of that penalty, a second penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for one year without cumulative effect was imposed on 26 August 2016.

Subsequently, compulsory retirement was imposed on 16 March 2017, and the applicant was released from service.

His representation dated 21 January 2019 was rejected by order dated 28 February 2019, leading to the present OA.

Whether a second major penalty could lawfully be imposed and operated during the currency of an earlier penalty.

Whether the second penalty was invalid for having been imposed without a formal enquiry, particularly because it adversely affected the applicant’s pension.

Whether the second penalty could be implemented from 26 August 2016 and taken into account while determining the applicant’s pensionary benefits, notwithstanding his compulsory retirement before the next increment date.

The Tribunal applied Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Rules, 1968, which classifies reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay, subject to directions concerning future increments, as a major penalty under Rule 6(v), and compulsory retirement as a major penalty under Rule 6(vii).

It held that, absent any rule or guideline prohibiting successive penalties during the currency of an earlier penalty, a subsequently imposed penalty remains enforceable; where penalties are imposed after due process, the employee must suffer both unless the later order provides otherwise.

The Tribunal also considered Master Circular No. 66 concerning enquiry requirements where a penalty may permanently affect pension, but held that no enquiry was necessary in the circumstances because the applicant had accepted the charges.

A pay-reduction penalty imposed from a specified date operates from that date and is not dependent upon the date of the next annual increment.

The Tribunal rejected the challenge to the successive penalties because the applicant produced no rule or guideline barring imposition of a later penalty during the operation of an earlier one.

It reasoned that such a restriction would produce an illogical result where the later penalty was compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal; accordingly, both penalties were enforceable unless the second order expressly postponed its operation.

The objection based on absence of enquiry also failed because the record showed that the applicant had accepted the charges, explaining why no enquiry was conducted; consequently, Master Circular No. 66 did not assist him.

Finally, the second penalty was expressly imposed on 26 August 2016 and therefore took effect from that date.

Its operation was a reduction by three stages in the time scale, not an adjustment dependent on the increment allegedly earned on 1 July or due on 1 July 2017. The Tribunal found no rational nexus between the penalty’s implementation and the subsequent increment date.

The applicant therefore failed to establish any entitlement to quashing of the order dated 28 February 2019, refixation of pension, arrears, or interest.

The OA was dismissed as devoid of merit; the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.