2013 (2) TMI 834 - SC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary proceeding - Initiated against a Senior Accountant Treasury- Service Jurisprudence - Failed to maintain chest book, movement register - Passed the bills, cheques and challans without Signing - On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, after following the requisite procedure, imposed the penalty of reversion to the post of Junior Accountant for two years with the stipulation that there would be postponement of future increments. Whether the reversion to the lower post for a period of two years with the stipulation of postponement of future increments on restoration to higher category does amount to two major penalties under Rule 9. HELD THAT - The rule making authority has splitted Rule 9(vii) into two parts - one is harsher than the other, but, both are less severe than the other punishments, namely, compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal. The reason behind it is not to let off one with simple reduction but to give a direction about the condition of pay on restoration and also not to impose a harsher punishment which may not be proportionate.the same really does not affect any vested or accrued right. It also does not violate any Constitutional protection.hence,the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is restored.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
2. Validity of the enquiry conducted.
3. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.
4. Interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
5. Applicability of amended versus unamended Rules.
6. Retrospective effect of the amended Rules.
7. Whether the punishment imposed amounted to two major penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The Tribunal held that there was no illegality or irregularity in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, framing of charges, or conduct of the enquiry. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the initiation and the findings were defensible and did not warrant interference.

2. Validity of the Enquiry Conducted:
The Tribunal found the enquiry to be valid, and the charges against the respondent were proven. The High Court did not find any fault with the Tribunal's findings regarding the conduct of the enquiry.

3. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed:
The Tribunal held that the punishment was not disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. However, the High Court found that the disciplinary authority had imposed two major penalties, which was not permissible under the Rules. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the punishment did not amount to two major penalties and was in accordance with the Rules.

4. Interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991:
The High Court interpreted the Rules to mean that the imposition of two major penalties was not permissible. The Supreme Court analyzed both the unamended and amended Rules, concluding that the punishment of reversion to a lower post with postponement of future increments did not constitute two major penalties under the Rules.

5. Applicability of Amended Versus Unamended Rules:
The Supreme Court noted that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the unamended Rules, and the punishment was imposed after the Rules were amended. The Court held that the amended Rules did not have retrospective effect and could not be applied to proceedings initiated before the amendment.

6. Retrospective Effect of the Amended Rules:
The Supreme Court ruled that the amended Rules did not have retrospective effect. The Court emphasized that retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute unless explicitly stated. The Court referenced several precedents to support this view, including the principle that a statute affecting substantive rights is presumed to be prospective.

7. Whether the Punishment Imposed Amounted to Two Major Penalties:
The High Court had set aside the punishment on the grounds that it amounted to two major penalties. The Supreme Court, however, held that the punishment of reversion to a lower post with postponement of future increments was a single major penalty under the amended Rules and did not violate any vested rights or constitutional protections.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and restored the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The Court concluded that the punishment was in accordance with the amended Rules and did not amount to two major penalties. The decision emphasized the non-retrospective nature of the amended Rules and clarified the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

← Previous Next →