HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Under instructions from the petitioner learned counsel gives up all pleas except pertaining to the penalty levied upon the petitioner by urging that the penalty violates Rule 8(d)(ii) of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980.
2. Vide order dated November 22, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority has levied the penalty upon the petitioner of reducing his pay by five stages in the time-scale of pay for a period of five years with further direction that during the period of reduction the petitioner will not earn increments and further on the expiration of the said period the reduction will have the effect of postponing petitioner’s future increments of pay.
3. Rule 8(d) of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980 reads as under:-
8. Principles for inflicting penalties. –
(d) Forfeiture of approved service.– Approved service may be forfeited permanently or temporarily for a specified period as under:-
(i) For purposes of promotion or seniority (Permanent only).
(ii) Entailing reduction in pay or deferment of an increment or increments (permanently or temporarily).”
4. We need not bother ourselves to interpret sub-rule (ii) of clause-d of Rule 8 of the Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules 1980 inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court has interpreted the same in a judgment dated September 17, 2002 deciding a large number of writ petitions, lead matter being WP(C) No.2368/2000 ‘Shakti Singh v. UOI & Ors.’
5. The phrase ‘permanently or temporarily’ in sub-clause (ii) of clause-d of Rule 8 was the subject matter of interpretation in the context of the sub- clause being disjunctive; having the word ‘or’ in the clause, thereby bisecting the clause into two parts; part one being an order entailing reduction in pay and the second part being an order deferring an increment.
6. The Division Bench considered whether the expression ‘permanently or temporarily’ qualifies both limbs of the clause or only the latter; and concluded that it qualifies only the latter. Meaning thereby, a penalty order entailing reduction in pay could not be given a permanent effect as per the mandate of the sub-rule in question.
7. The result was that the Division Bench set aside such kinds of penalties (the one we are dealing with) and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the penalty.
8. In other words, the Disciplinary Authority could choose to inflict the penalty entailing reduction in pay (but not permanently) or deferment of an increment (temporarily or permanently).
9. We do likewise. Impugned penalty order dated November 1999 as also the appellate order dated April 10, 2000 are set aside. The impugned order dated July 05, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No.1211/2000 is also set aside.
10. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to re-decide the penalty which needs to be inflicted upon the petitioner keeping into view the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Singh’s case (supra).
11. Since petitioner has already suffered the penalty i.e. he was reduced in pay for a period of five years and after five years the increments for the five years were also withheld, we direct that keeping in view the penalty which would now be levied if arrears become payable they would be computed and paid to the petitioner within six weeks of the penalty being levied.
12. No costs.
13. DASTI.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2013 dkb (VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE