Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.
We have heard Sri A.K. Gaur for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra for the first respondent.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19th May, 2011, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in Original Application No.97 of 2005, by which the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application of the first respondent and has set aside the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority, with direction to pass suitable orders in respect of arrears of pay, allowances, etc. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioners on the short ground that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the punishment awarded to the first respondent was a major penalty and therefore the major penalty procedure was required to be followed and, in absence thereof, the order imposing punishment was void.
Sri A.K. Gaur has invited attention of the Court to Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, which prescribe various penalties that can be imposed on a railway servant. Attention of the Court, in particular, has been invited to Rule 6(iii-b) of the aforesaid Rules, 1968, as applicable on the date of punishment order i.e. 24th March, 1998, which describes "Reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension", as a minor penalty.
It has been contended that the punishment which was imposed upon the first respondent was reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years without having cumulative effect or effect in future or which may have adverse effect on pension.
It has been submitted that on the date when the punishment was imposed, the aforesaid punishment was a minor penalty and therefore the Tribunal fell in error by concluding that above penalty was a major penalty; and that, for not following the major penalty procedure, the disciplinary action was void.
Sri P.K. Mishra, who has appeared on behalf of the first respondent, submitted that the punishment which was imposed upon the first respondent would be a major penalty in view of Rule 6 (v) of the Rules, 1968, which describes such a punishment as a major penalty.
Rule 6 (v) provides as follows : "Save as otherwise provided for in clause (iii-b) reduction to the lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay".
It has been urged by learned counsel for first respondent that since reduction to lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period would amount to a major penalty, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the disciplinary action which was taken without following the major penalty procedure.
We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
Rule 6(v) of the Rules 1968 in view of opening sentence "save as otherwise provided for in clause (iii-b)" signifies that it applies to a situation not covered by Rule 6(iii-b) of the Rules, 1968. Meaning thereby that reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay, by one stage, for the period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting pension, would be a minor penalty whereas it would be a major penalty when it exceeds the above, or is for a period exceeding three years or provides for cumulative effect or adversely affects pension.
It is not clear to us from the record, whether the punishment imposed was reduction by more than one stage or just by one stage in the time scale of pay. It may be observed that if by lowering one stage in the time-scale of pay, the incumbent comes to the lowest stage that, by itself, may not be major penalty, because what is to be seen is whether such lowering exceeds one stage or not.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal needs to consider the matter afresh in the light of the interpretation that we have accorded to the provisions of Rules 6 (iii-b) and 6 (v) of the Rules, 1968. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside. The Tribunal shall restore Original Application No.97 of 2005 to its original number and shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law by taking into consideration all aspects that may have been raised by the first respondent including whether the penalty imposed was major or minor in the light of the observations made above. As the matter has remained pending for over a decade, it is further provided that the Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018.
Rks.