J&K CCA Rules 1956 | Forfeiture Of Increment Is A Major Penalty Due To Permanent Pay Reduction, Requires Detailed Enquiry Under Rule 33: High Court

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the forfeiture of increments, which effectively reduces an employee's pay scale, constitutes a penalty as defined in clause (iv) of Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings must adhere to a detailed enquiry as outlined in Rule 33 of the CCA Rules.

Background:

The case arose from a disciplinary action against Petitioner Mohammad Amin Mir, a Senior Assistant at the University of Kashmir with his suspension following allegations related to a fraudulent cheque for Rs.11,158/-.

Later the University issued a show cause notice accusing him of attempting to encash a fraudulent cheque and fleeing from the bank when asked to provide identification.

Mir contested the suspension and show cause through a writ petition led to a court order directing the university to reconsider his case. Despite the court's directive, the university imposed an enhanced penalty including the forfeiture of five annual increments and deferral of Mir's promotion by five years. The university also recommended his transfer to a satellite campus.

Aggrieved of the same Mir contended that the disciplinary action violated the CCA Rules, arguing that no proper chargesheet was issued, nor was he given an adequate opportunity to defend himself or participate in a fair enquiry. He claimed that the enhanced penalty of forfeiture of five annual increments and deferment of his promotion by five years was excessive and unjust, as it was imposed without a proper enquiry.

Court's Observations:

Justice Dhar meticulously examined the arguments presented by both sides and pointed out that the penalty of forfeiture of increments amounted to a "major penalty" under the CCA Rules as it permanently affects an employee's salary progression.

This kind of penalty falls under Rule 33, which mandates a comprehensive enquiry process and according to Rule 33, a formal chargesheet must be issued, detailing the allegations, and the employee must be given a fair opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses, the bench underscored.

The Court, citing the judgment in Punjab State and others vs. Ram Lubhaya (1982) explained the difference between withholding increments with and without cumulative effect and emphasized that the former results in a permanent loss of pay and thus qualifies as a major penalty.

Justice Dhar further noted that while the university had initially conducted some enquiry, it failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of Rule 33 when imposing the enhanced penalty.

“The respondents have not held any enquiry at all with regard to additional allegations levelled against the petitioner regarding preparation of 25 cheques, therefore, it was not open to them to make it a basis for enhancing the penalty against the petitioner. There has been clear breach of the mandatory procedure on the part of the respondents in the present case”, the bench remarked.

In consonance with these findings the court quashed the impugned order to the extent of the penalties imposed and directed the university to initiate a fresh enquiry in accordance with the Rule.

Case Title: Mohammad Amin Mir Vs University Of Kashmir

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 247

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment