Project Report

Analysis of Minor and Major Penalties

Service Law

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Sonal

SUBMITTED BY:

Caral

9/14, 8thsem

Section- A

B.A.LLB. (Hons.)

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, PANJAB

UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is with profound gratitude and deep reverence that I have completed this project today, as it would have not
been possible for me to do so without the indispensable guidance of my teacher, Dr. Sonal, who not only
encouraged me to go forward with this project report but also propagated all my ideologies and interpretations
about the same.

I’m also grateful to the many authors whose books and articles I have used as a valuable resource for my work.
I hope this project meets everyone’s expectations.

Thank you

(CARAL)

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. Table of cases 4
2. Introduction 5
3. Minor and Major Penalties 6-12
 Minor Penalties 6-9
 Major Penalties 10-12
4. Conclusion 13
5. Bibliography 14

3
TABLE OF CASES

1) B.D. Gupta vs State of Haryana

2) Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
3) Gurbax singh v. State of Punjab
4) Jagat Narain v. Food Corporation of India
5) M.P.S.A.I.D Corpn. V. Jahan Khan
6) R.K. Bharati v. Union of India
7) R.K. Das v. Coal India Limited
8) State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar

4
INTRODUCTION
Departmental Proceedings mean the proceedings taken by the competent authority against any of its employee,
in disciplinary cases. These involve measures for enforcing discipline among the employees. These are
1
administrative-cum-legal proceedings.

The Government of India is a super-employer in charge of the largest community of employees of all types,
ministerial, supervisory, executive and managerial, apart from its industrial workers. As a model employer, it
has to observe all the laws of the land in dealing with its employees, right from their recruitment to their
retirement. The government has to ensure that its employees behave themselves, enforce discipline and
promote loyalty for the sake of smooth conduct of public administration, prevent corruption practices and
punish errant employees, through appropriate disciplinary measures. It is, therefore, the prerogative of the
Government to hold disciplinary proceedings. However, this prerogative must be used for public good, in a
fair and reasonable manner.2 There is no bar in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings after
superannuation of an employee.

In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar,3 a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that merely
because a Government servant had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, he could not
escape the liability for misconduct and negligence or financial irregularities, which he might have committed
during the period of his service and that the Government was entitled to withhold or reduce the pension granted
to a Government servant, by conducting enquiry proceedings even after retirement of the employee.

Imposition of Minor Penalties

Where, after the receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority, after applying its own mind to the whole case,
comes to its own independent conclusions, uninfluenced by any other person, that a minor penalty is sufficient,
then a show cause notice, indicating a particular penalty to be imposed, together with a copy of the enquiry
report, shall be served upon the delinquent. After considering his explanation thereon, the penalty should be
imposed.

It is, thus, held that the procedure contained in the relevant Service Rules, must be complied with while
imposing a minor penalty on the delinquent employee.

Imposition of Major Penalties

1 Kumar Narender; Law relating to Government Servants & management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service law);2017
2
State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, AIR 2001 SC 343
3 (1988) 2 SCC 5211

5
If, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and applying its mind to the whole case, the disciplinary
authority, is of the opinion that any of the major penalties, should be imposed on the delinquent, it would not
be necessary to afford him any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed.
An order imposing such a penalty can be passed straight away.4 But rather should be accompanied with a
show cause notice and copy of the Enquiry report before imposing penalty otherwise it would be violative of
natural justice.

MINOR AND MAJOR PENALTIES

The Minor Penalties and the Major Penalties in Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 have been graded in
order of the severity to be awarded to a charged Government servant in proportion to the gravity of
misconduct/negligence which has given rise to the charge-sheet.

Minor Penalties under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

(i) Censure
(ii) Withholding of his promotion
(iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the government
by negligence or breach of orders
(a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three
years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
(b) Withholding of increments of pay.5

The minor penalties will be explained in detailed as follows:

(1) Censure under Rule 11(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

An order of “Censure” is a formal and public act intended to convey that the person concerned has been guilty
of some blameworthy act or omission for which it has been found necessary to award him a formal
punishment. It is a formal punishment and imposed for “good and sufficient reason” after following the
prescribed procedure. A record of the punishment so imposed is kept on the officer’s confidential roll and the
fact that he has been ‘censured’ will have its bearing on the assessment of his merit or suitability for promotion
to higher posts.

4 Rule 15(4), C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965

5 Dr. Babita Devi Pathania; Service laws in India; 2016; Chapter 11

6
Imposition of the penalty of censure on a government servant does not by itself stand against the consideration
of such person for promotion or for the person to appear at a departmental/ promotional examination.

In B.D. Gupta vs State of Haryana,6 the apex court held that before imposing the penalty of censure a show-
cause notice must be given and he should be given a reasonable opportunity for defense.

Censure and Warning Distinguished

A "censure" may be distinguished from "warning". While censure is a formal penalty, warning is an
administrative action. It is an administrative device in the hands of the superior officer for cautioning the
subordinate officials with a view to toning up efficiency and maintaining discipline.

Sometimes, circumstances justify the mention of warning in the officials’ Confidential Roll. However, the
mere fact that it is so mentioned in the Confidential Roll does not convert a "warning" into a "censure".

When a copy of warning is kept in the Confidential Roll of the employee, it will be taken as adverse entry. In
that case, the employee concerned will have the right to represent against it in accordance with the rules. The

procedure laid down for imposing minor penalties is to be followed in such cases. Though, mention of a
warning in the Confidential Roll, would have the effect of making it apparent that the employee concerned
has done something blameworthy and to some extent may also effect the assessment of his merit and suitability
for promotion, it would not, however, amount to the imposition of the penalty of censure, because it was not
intended that any formal punishment should be inflicted.

In the case of R.K. Das v. Coal India Limited7 ,Refusal to consider the name for promotion only on this
ground has been held illegal. If at the end of the year the authority feels that the conduct of the employee has
not improved despite the warning, it may make mention of such warning in confidential report and copy of it
to be kept in confidential roll file.

6 AIR 1972 SC 2472

7
1999(1) SLR (cal) 58.

7
 (2) Withholding of Promotion under Rule 11(ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Every Government servant has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. Generally, his promotion
is considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and an overall assessment of his service record. An order for
withholding of promotion should clearly state the period for which promotion is withheld.

In Jagat Narain v. Food Corporation of India,8 the promotion orders of the petitioner were cancelled as he
was facing disciplinary proceeding on the day of his promotion. Five vigilance cases were pending against
him. The sealed cover procedure adopted by the respondent in respect of the petitioner, in denying him the
promotion, was held not to be arbitrary, unfair or unjust, which might warrant interference by the court.

The imposition of this penalty shall have a two-way effect, i.e., firstly, the factum of punishment may stand
in his way of getting selected for promotion; and secondly, even if he is selected, the promotion shall take
effect only after the period of punishment is over. So the penalty being imposed must be free from ambiguity
and vagueness. Scope of penalty must be clearly brought out in the order without leaving any scope for
interpretation or filing up the gap through arguments such as ‘by necessary implication’.

(3) Recovery from Pay under Rule 11(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Every Government servant is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of public money as in respect
of his own money. He should realize that he will be held responsible for any loss sustained by the government
on account of his negligence or due to breach of orders by him. Therefore, where some pecuniary loss has
been caused to the Government due to his act or omission, the Government by imposing this penalty can order
the recovery of whole or part of the loss. In such a case, the government shall correctly assess, in a realistic
manner, the contributory negligence on the part of the employee and may order the recovery. Further, it must
give an action oriented notice and opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned. However, the
government cannot recover the amount more than the actual loss. In brief, the following requirements are to
be met for imposing this penalty:

 Recovery can be ordered only from pay, not from pension or allowances
 Recovery cannot be ordered for an amount more than the actual loss to the government
 The loss for which the recovery is to be ordered, must be pecuniary
 The loss must have been caused to the govt.

8 2008 (3) SLR 316

8
  The loss has been caused either by negligence or breach of orders.

In Gurbax singh v. State of Punjab,9 the government servant, a Sub-Divisional Officer was charge-sheeted
on the ground that he committed negligence by giving his personal key to the cash clerk, because of which,
theft of the government money took place. He was held liable and the government ordered the recovery of the
amount to the extent of 60% of the loss. The action of the government was upheld as perfectly legal and just.
In M.P.S.A.I.D Corpn. V. Jahan Khan10, it has been held that the penalty of recovery from pay cannot be
imposed without conducting an enquiry as otherwise it is impossible to arrive at the correct finding with regard
to causing of the loss by the employee by his negligence or breach of duty and with regard to quantum of loss.

(4) Withholding of Increments under Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it has been held to be a minor penalty.
However, when the increments are withheld with cumulative effect, which results in cutting off the employee’s
increments forever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay, it has to be treated as a major penalty,
which would require the holding of a full-fledged enquiry.

As a measure of minor penalty, the increment can be withheld for a specified period only. Unless a specific
order for withholding of increment payable to a government servant is passed by the disciplinary authority,
he earns increments in a scale of pay, as a matter of right and as a matter of course. Stoppage of increment for
one year w/o any future effect has nothing to do with determination of his seniority. Placing him below his
juniors, on this ground, would be illegal.11

An order of withholding increments is quasi-judicial in nature. It must be passed after application of mind by
the authority on the employee’s explanation to the show cause notice.This penalty takes effect from the date
of increment falling due to the employee after the issue of the punishment order. Therefore, the order cannot
affect the increment which was due to the employee prior to the issue of the order, even though, the increment
may not have actually been drawn.12The following shall not amount to penalty-

(a) Withholding of increments for failure of the employee to pass any departmental examination in
accordance with the Service Rules or standing Orders governing the Service;
(b) Stoppage of government servant at the efficiency bar (E.B.) in the time scale of pay on the ground of
his unfitness to cross the efficiency bar.

9 1996 (1) SLR (P. & H.) 683

10 AIR 2007 SC 3153.
11
Shiv Kumar v. Hy. S.E.B., 1988(3) SLR (SC) 524.
12 It may be because the employee was on leave or other administrative reasons.

9
Major Penalties under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

While the major penalties of compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal from service have
been included as clause (vii), (viii) and (ix) of the Rule 11, the penalty reduction to a lower time scale of pay,
grade, post or Service has been incorporated therein as clause (vi). This clause also provides that while
imposing the penalty, the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate/Revision Authority is also required to
indicate in the penalty order whether or not the individual charged government servant would be eligible for
restoration to the grade/post or service from which he was reduced and his seniority and pay on such
restoration and the conditions for such restoration.it would, therefore, be seen that the penalty has been
provided to be awarded to an individual who may not be sent out of Government Service( through
dismissal/removal etc.,) but who needs to be given a very severe penalty in view of the gravity of his
misconduct.

The major penalties have been explained in detail as follows:

(1) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay for a specified period, which shall ordinarily be not a bar to
promotion under Rule 11(v)

An order imposing the penalty should invariably specify the stage in terms of rupees to which the employee
is reduced. It should also indicate the extent to which the order should operate to postpone future increments.

When a government servant is reduced to particular stage, his pay will remain constant at the stage for the
entire period of reduction. The date from which the order is to take effect and the period for which the penalty
will be operative should be indicated in the order. It should also indicate the extent to which the future
increments are postponed, unless the intention is that the reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite
period.13

The penalty has the following implications:

 The penalty can be imposed for a specified period only and it should be a reasonable one.
 The reduction in pay can be ordered to any lower stage in the time scale, but cannot be fixed at an
amount below the minimum of scale.
 It is obligatory for the authority to make orders-
- Whether the employee will draw his nominal increments during the occurrence of punishment.

13 Kumar Narender; Law relating to Government Servants & management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service law);2017

10
 - Whether the reduction will have effect of postponing his future increments.

In R.K. Bharati v. Union of India,14 the Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal held that if during
the period of operation of this penalty, the public servant is allowed to draw his normal increment, then the
question of future increments does not arise. The reason is that if there is only reduction in pay but no
withholding of increment, how it can postpone any future increment.15

(2) Reduction to a lower grade, post or Service

It has been held that that the power to reduce in rank by way of punishment can only be exercised in respect
of those employees who were appointed by promotion to a higher post, service, etc. Therefore, reduction in
rank of an employee initially recruited to a higher time-scale, grade or service or post to a lower time-scale,
grade, service or post is not permissible.

Again, a directly appointed employee cannot be reverted to a lower post against which he was never appointed.

(3) Compulsory Retirement under Rule 11 (viii)

Though the penalty of Compulsory Retirement does not find a mention in Article 311 of the Constitution, the
apex court has held that the penalty is deemed to be included in the term ‘Removal from Service’. 16 The
penalty of compulsory retirement differs from removal or dismissal from service in regard to retirement
benefits. While dismissal or removal from service entails forfeiture of past services and deprivation of
retirement benefits, the person on whom the penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed, remains entitled to
the proportionate pension on the basis of the service rendered by him. There is also no bar to his re-
employment under the Government.

Compulsory retirement is more or less akin to refusal to employ as a servant. There is no element of
punishment when a candidate is refused employment. Similarly, a servant is not punished when he is
compulsory retired on the ground that he cannot render useful services to the state. There is hardly any
difference between the rule authorizing compulsory retirement and the rule that the Government servant will

14 GB CB (1986) Vol. II p. 80
15 Dr. Babita Devi Pathania; Service laws in India; 2016; Chapter 11

16 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416

11
be retired on completing 25 years qualifying service with the option to the government to permit him to remain
in service for five years more. There are cases where even after the age of 60 years some officials are refused
extension and some are not refused. Government servants who are refused extension cannot claim that they
have been punished. What is sought to be stressed is that compulsory retirement is not punishment even if the
order making the servant to compulsorily retire had recited the fact that he had outlived his utility and the
order so made would not amount to be a punitive order.17

(4) Removal from service under Rule 11(viii)

Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the government

(5) Dismissal under Rule 11(ix)

Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the
government.

Difference between removal from service and dismissal from service

Punishment of removal from service is virtually dismissal from service. Only difference between dismissal
and removal is that in the latter case there is no disqualification for reemployment.

In Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay18 it has been
explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both bring about
termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or dismissal. The
only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is disqualified from future
employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting future employment. Therefore,
dismissal has more serious consequence in comparison to removal.19

17 Abdul Ahmed v. inspector General of Police, AIR 1965 All 142

18 (1992) 2 SCC 547

19 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/mobile/forum/details.asp?mod_id=10200
12
CONCLUSION

After discussing a wide variety of penalties, one thing is clear that these legislative sanctions are very
important to ensure the smooth and congenial working of the government departments. But the one thing
which has to be taken care of is that penalties which are imposed are a result of conscious judicious thinking
and in consonance with the principles of Natural Justice. It basically means that a reasonable opportunity
should be given to the charged person to show his case that why he should not be penalised. A show cause
notice along with enquiry report should be submitted before penalising a person.
 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK SOURCES:

 Kumar Prof. Narender, ‘law relating to government servants and Management of disciplinary
proceedings’; Allahabad law agency, Haryana, 2014.
 Dr. Babita Devi Pathania, ‘service Laws in India’; New Era Law Publications, Faridabad(Haryana),
2016.

WEB SOURCES:

 http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/09/penalties.html
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/mobile/forum/details.asp?mod_id=10200
 http://agl.tnebnet.org/pens/rettips/punishret.html
14