2013 (10) TMI 1578 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the authority imposing the punishment.
2. Continuation of disciplinary proceedings post-retirement.
3. Right to appeal against the order of punishment.

Summary:

1. Competence of the Authority Imposing the Punishment:
The Supreme Court examined whether the U.P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) was competent to impose the punishment of deducting 10% of the pension of the delinquent employee, Virendra Lal, who retired as an Assistant Engineer. The Court noted that Regulation 6(4) of the U.P. State Electricity Board (Officers and Servants) (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975, empowers the Chairman to deal with the report and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee and pass final orders for officers up to the rank of Superintending Engineer. Since the delinquent employee retired as an Assistant Engineer, the Chairman was the authorized authority to pass the order of punishment. However, the order was passed by the UPSEB, thereby denying the delinquent employee his right to appeal, which is a substantive right under Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 6.

2. Continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings Post-Retirement:
The Court referenced the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma, which supports the proposition that disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement can continue post-retirement for the purpose of reducing pension and gratuity. The Court acknowledged that the disciplinary proceeding against Virendra Lal was initiated while he was in service and continued post-retirement, leading to the imposition of punishment by the UPSEB.

3. Right to Appeal Against the Order of Punishment:
The Court emphasized the importance of the right to appeal, which is a statutory right. It cited several precedents, including Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, and Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd., to highlight that when a higher authority imposes punishment, it should not deprive the delinquent employee of the right to appeal. In this case, the UPSEB's order deprived Virendra Lal of his right to appeal to the Board, as provided under the Regulations. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision to affirm the tribunal's order, which set aside the UPSEB's punishment, was correct and did not suffer from any impropriety or illegality.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the UPSEB's order of punishment was flawed due to the denial of the right to appeal, and affirmed the tribunal's direction to release the deducted pension amount with interest.