Ccs cca 1965 , regarding implementation of penality
deepak Shivnikar
(Querist) 16 April 2014
This query is : Resolved
The Disciplinary authority ( Hon. DPS Aurangabad Region Maharashta ) issued punishment order vide Memo No Ar /Staff-II/Rule14/ DRS/Dhule/2007 dated 09/01/2013 as “ pay be reduced by two stages from Rs.18590/- to Rs.17510/- in time scale of pay of Rs. 9300/- to Rs 34800/- plus GP 4200/- for period of three years with immediate effect . He will not earn increment during the period of reduction .It is further directed that reduction will not have effect of postponing his future increments of pay.”
Appellate authority ( Hon.PMG Aurangabad) issued appellate order on 17/09/2013 as follows - “pay of Shri D R Shivnikar be reduced by three stages in time scale of pay for one year with effect from the date of effect of existing punishment , with further direction that he will earn increment during the period of reduction & that on expiry of this period , the reduction will have effect of postponing his future increments of pay “
Information Required :-
1. Whether the above appellate order will be executable ?
2. If yes then illustration of it be provided.
3. If No then the reasons there of?
Sir ,
You said that the above order is executable , please tell me how it will be executable with reference to CAT Bench New Delhi Judgement in R K Bharati Vs Union of Indian treated is as defective punishment order by stating that " Once it is stated that the official will draw the increment during reduction then how there will be postponement of increments. Please tell how it will be practically implemented
Pay as on 01/01/2013 is 18590 including GP , what will be pay after completion of period of punishment i.e. 01/01/2014
Guest
(Expert) 16 April 2014
You should have posted your clarification in your original thread started earlier where I stated that the order is executable.
However, while quoting R K Bharati Vs Union of India, you have not stated what exactly was the decision of the disciplinary authority in the case of R K Bharati which the CAT would have treated as defective order in the case of R K Bharati Vs Union of India.
Moreover, it depends from person to person how the penalty order is interpreted by him. In my view the order conveys that while increment would be allowed, but the same would be based on the reduced three stages of pay, i.e., not on the unaffected original stage of pay. Still further, the increments would continue to be earned, but to be based on the reduced stage of pay without restoration of the original three increments, by which the pay was reduced, as in the previous increment case. In other words, the reduction would be of cumulative effect, i.e., reduced by three increments forever.
In nut shell, the appellate authority has enhanced the penalty.
Guest
(Expert) 16 April 2014
If you feel that the order of appellate authority in not executable, you may challenge the same in the CAT taking your own interpretation. I have mentioned what I interpret about the order.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 April 2014
It will be in your own interest if you ou do not scatter facts on multiple threads.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 April 2014
I have already discussed at length at
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Implementation-of-punishment-order--466496.asp#.U06VnqI1g48
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 April 2014
In addition to what I observed Mr Dhingra has rightly observed that the Penalty has been enhanced by Appellate Authority.
The non-cumulative penalty has been made commutative.
You have not intimated whether any SCN was issued before enhancing penalty.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 April 2014
It is fully correct ( as already observed by Mr Dhingra based on given facts) that you have to move to CAT.
While moving to CAT other legal infirmities will also have to be challenged in one go.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 17 April 2014
I agree with the experts advise.
It is executable and require to be challenged in CAT.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar is a seasoned expert in service matters, located in Mumbai, contact him.
deepak Shivnikar
(Querist) 17 April 2014
Sir
I agree with the expert advice of Mr. Sudhir Kumar due to fact that the he logically arrived at advice which had been stated in FR 29 in which it is clearly stated that the period of reduction shall not exceed the period specified in the order itself and in present case period of reduction is for one year and not for unspecified period. Therefore I request Mr. PS Dhingra to take into consideration FR-29. I would like to bring to your notice that as per rule show cause notice was given before enhancement of punishment order.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 17 April 2014
perusal of papers of inquiry (by any expert) may reveal more illegalities in case.
This must be done before submission of OA in CAT.
Guest
(Expert) 17 April 2014
Dear Deepak,
Your case falls within the parameter of FR 29(1), which is quite clear and the order of the DPS is in accordance with the provision of the said rule, which states, as follows:
"FR 29(1) If Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower stage in the time scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effectove and whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent."
Evidently, in view of the above ruling position, there is no typographical error.
Moreover, I have not seen anywhere if Shri Sudhir Kumar has referred FR 29 in any of his replies on your question.
So, please be specific what actually is your doubt where the authority has already specified the period of effectiveness of the reduction and also ordered that the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments, as provided in he rule.
Rest depends upon your own interpretation and how you can convince the judge on that if you file a case in the CAT.
Guest
(Expert) 18 April 2014
If you need more detailed discussion on the issue, you may feel free to send further details and background of the case at: dcgroup1962@gmail.com
