Holding

A disciplinary authority cannot impose both major and minor penalties in the same order; reduction of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 11(v), so only that penalty is permissible.

Summary

The respondent, a Deputy Commandant of the CRPF, was found guilty of failing to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acting in an unbecoming manner after a vehicular accident. The disciplinary authority imposed three penalties: reduction of pay to the minimum of the time‑scale for three years with cumulative effect, loss of seniority, and recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government. The High Court held that the reduction with cumulative effect was a minor penalty and restored the respondent's seniority. The Supreme Court held that reduction with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 11(v) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and that a disciplinary authority cannot impose both major and minor penalties in the same order. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s directions and limited the punishment to the reduction of pay for three years with cumulative effect, rejecting the loss of seniority and monetary recovery. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether reduction to the minimum of the time‑scale of pay for three years with cumulative effect constitutes a major or a minor penalty under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Whether a disciplinary authority can impose both major and minor penalties in the same order.
Whether a concession made by counsel before a court binds the parties when statutory provisions are clear.
Whether non‑mentioning or incorrect mentioning of a statutory provision in an order affects its validity.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964s. Rule 11(iii), s. Rule 11(iii)(a), s. Rule 11(v), s. Rule 3(1)(ii), s. Rule 3(1)(iii)

Subjects

Service lawDisciplinary actionMajor penaltyMinor penaltyCentral Civil Services (Conduct) RulesReduction of payLoss of seniorityDisciplinary authority jurisdictionConcession by counselStatutory interpretation

Judgment

J

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
S.C. PARASHAR

FEBRUARY 24, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, I964-Rule I I (iii), (iii)(a),
(v)-Government servant failing to maintain absolute devotion to duty and C
acting in unbecoming manner-Imposition of major and minor penalties-
reduction to the minimum of time-scale of pay for three years with cumulative
effect, loss of seniority and penalty for the loss incurred-Permissibility of-
Held: Imposition of both major and minor penalties by the same order is not
permissible-Such act of Disciplinary Authority is illegal and without D
_-1, jurisdiction-Hence, penalty to be confined to reduction to minimum of time
scale of pay for period of three years with cumulative effect.

Practice and procedure:

Concession made by counsel-Contrary to statutory provisions-Binding E
nature of-Held: Cannot bind the parties.

Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of provision in an order-Effect
of, when requisite ingredients available for passing the order-Held: Is
irrelevant.
F
Respondent-Deputy Commandant of Central Reserve Police Force
was found guilty under the provisions of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 for failing to maintain absolute devotion to duty
and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. In terms
of the Rules, Disciplinary Authority imposed three penalties-reduction to
the minimum of time scale of pay for a period of three years with
.
cumulative effect, loss of seniority and recovery of 25% of the loss incurred
G

by the Government. Respondent challenged the punishment order. High
Court held that Rule 1l(iii)(a) provides for minor penalty and in terms
thereof reduction of pay for three years should not have been directed to
529 H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A be effected with cumulative effect. It directed that he would be entitled to
seniority on basis of DPC held when his immediate junior was promoted
and all consequential benefits denied to him for loss of seniority. Hence,
the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD I.I. The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam
of minor penalty and major penalty. Respondent has been inflicted with
three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay
for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority;
C and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government on
account of damage to the Gypsy. Whereas redui:tion of time-scale of pay
with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v)
of Rule 11 of the the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, loss of
seniority and recovery of amount would come within the purview of minor
penalty, as envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. Therefore, the
D Disciplinary Authority, acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing
both minor and major penalties by the same ordt!r. Such a course of action
could not have been taken in law. [534-D-E-F)

1.2. The concession of the counsel appearing for the appellant before
the High Court was apparently erroneous. Wrong concession made by a
E counsel before the court cannot bind the parties when statutory provisions
clearly provide otherwise. (534-G-H)

Union of India and Ors. v. Mohan/al Likumal Punjabi and Ors., (2004)
3 sec 628, relied on.

F 1.3. Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision in an order '"
may be held to be irrelevant if it is found that the requisite ingredients
thereof were available on records for passing the same. [534-CJ

1.4. The penalty imposed upon the respondent, would be reduction
to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with
G cumulative effect. Respondent is entitled to be considered for promotion
after a period of three years. However, it seems he has since been promoted .,
to the rank of Commandant. (535-F( r

Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh &
H Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1673, relied on.
\

r
U.0.1. v. S.C. PARASHAR [SINHA . .l.] 531
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1267 of2006. A
From the Final Order dated 11.03.2003 of the Delhi High Court in
C.W. P. No. 3992 of 1997.

A. Sharan, ASG, Mrs. Sunita Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the
Appellant. B
Anupam Lal Das for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
c
The respondent was a Deputy Commandant in 42 Bn. of Central Reserve
~ Police Force (CRPF). He, in the month of December, 1992, was acting as
Officer-in-charge of DAGOs in Delhi in connection with 53rd CRPF
anniversary parade which was to be held during the period December, 1992
and January, 1993. He was given a new Maruti 'Gypsy' for performing D
-' official duties. He allegedly drove the said Maruti unauthorisedly and at a
very high speed beyond his jurisdiction and met with a serious accident when
the said vehicle collided with a stationary truck between Manesar and Delhi
on National Highway No.8. The driver of the said Gypsy L/Nk Anand Singh
suffered serious injuries on his person. The respondent, however, left the
vehicle unattended. He also left the said driver in an unconscious state. He E
also did not inform headquarters about the said accident.

A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the charges that
he failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions p
contained in Rule 3(1 )(ii) and (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 ('the Rules'). In the disciplinary proceedings he was found guilty
of the said charges. The disciplinary authority, being the President, imposed
the following penalty upon him :

"In the light of the above, having regard to all other aspects of the G
case and after consultation with UPSC the President considers that
ends of justice would be met in this case if the penalty of (i) "Reduction
to minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of 3 years (three)
with cumulative effect, including loss of seniority and (ii) penalty of
25% (twenty five per cent) of the loss incurred by the Govt. to the
tune of Rs.74,341.89 i.e. Rs.18,585.47 (Rupees Eighteen thousand H
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.
'
A five hundred eighty five and paisa forty seven) only on account of
damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly instalments" is
imposed on Shri S.C. Parashar, Dy. 42 Bn. CRPF. The President
hereby orders accordingly."

The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi
B questioning the said order of punishment, which was marked as C. W.P.No.3992
of 1997.

Having regard to the nature of penalty imposed upon the respondent, .....
the counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India contended before the High
Court that the same was imposed in terms of claus•! (a) of sub-Rule (iii) of
C Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules (CCS Rules). The High Court, while refusing
to go into the relevancy or otherwise of the material brought on record in the
departmental proceeding found that penalty was imposed in violation of the
said Rule on the premise that sub-Rule (iii)(a) of Rule 11 provides only for
a minor penalty and thus in terms thereof reduction of pay for a period of
D three years should not have been directed to be effected with cumulative
effect. Consequently, it was directed :

"The petitioner shall be entitled to seniority on the basis of DPC
which was held on 7.4.1997 when his immediate junior was promoted
to the rank of Second-In-Command. The petitioner shall also be entitled
E to all consequential benefits which stood denied due to punishment
of loss of seniority."

The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the
Appellant contended before us that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
sub-Rule (v) of Rule 11 of CCS Rules is attracted and not sub-rule (iii)
F thereof.
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent,
on the other hand, would submit that in view of the concession made at the
Bar before the High Court and in particular, the fact that two penalties as
contemplated under sub-Rules (iii) and (iii)( a) of Rule 11 of CCS Rules were
G also included in the order of punishment, the same must be held to be illegal.
It was further submitted that the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority
failed to take into consideration the circumstances under which the accident
took place. According to the learned counsel, the respondent had gone to
Manesar to collect some material for the purpose of imparting training to _the
H trainees which being not available, they were returning to Delhi. On his way
U.0.l. v. S.C. PARAS HAR [SINHA. J.] 533
to Delhi he had his dinner. The driver was sent to the Mess and as the driver A
being drunk, was not in a fit state to drive, he had to drive the vehicle
himself.

In this case, we are not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of
the report of the Enquiry Officer. Misconduct on the part of the Respondent
has been proved. The High Court also did not go into the said question. The B
respondent has not questioned before us that part of the order of the High
Court.

The only question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to
whether in terms of the rules the penalty imposed on the respondent was
permissible in law. The relevant provision of Rule 11 of CCS Rules reads C
thus :

"PENALTIES

The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and
as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- D
Minor Penalties -
(i) censures;
(ii) withholding of promotion;
E
(iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecimiary
loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of
order;

(iii)(a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a
period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not F
adversely affecting his pension.

xxx xxx xxxx

(v) save as provided for in clause (iii)(a), reduction to a lower
stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further G
directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn
. increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether
1
on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the
effect of postponing the future increments of his pay."

It is not in dispute that sub-Rules (iii) and (iii)(a) of Rule 11 provide H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [10061 2 S.C.R.

A for minor penalties whereas clause (v) thereof pwvides for major penalty.
Indisputably the procedure adopted in the departmental proceeding was for
imposition of a major penalty. It is trite that even in a case where the procedure
followed in the departmental proceedings for imposition of a major penalty,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of a case, minor penalty can
also be imposed. The question is as to whether the penalty imposed by the
B President upon taking into consideration the report filed by the Enquiry Officer,
was under clauses (iii) and (iii)(a) or clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules.

Before adverting to the said question we may record that wrong
concession of a counsel on a pure question of law is not binding upon a
C party. It is furthermore trite that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a
provision in an order may be held to be irrelevant if it is found that the
requisite ingredients thereof were available on records for passing the same.
We may further notice that the High Court proceeded on the basis that the
penalty imposed upon him was a major penalty.

D The penalty imposed upon the respondent i5 an amalgam of minor
penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three
penalties: (I) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period
of three years with cumulative effect; (2) 'loss of S·~niority; and (3) recovery
of25% of the Joss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs.74,34 I.89p.,
i.e., Rs. 18,585.47p. on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen)
E equal monthly instalments. Whereas reduction of time-scale of pay with
cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule
11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount would come
within the purview of minor penalty, as envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)( a)
thereof. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally
F and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the
same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law.

However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Disciplinary
Authority never intended to impose a minor penalty. The concession of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant before the High Court was
G apparently erroneous. It is now well-settled that wrong concession made by
a counsel before the court cannot bind the parties when statutory provisions
clearly provide otherwise. (See Union of India and Ors. v. Mohan/al Likumal
Punjabi llnd Ors.,- (2004] 3 SCC 628]. The penalty imposed upon the
respondent, in our considered view, therefore, should be kept confined to the
H reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years
U.0.1. v. S.C. PARASHAR [SINHA. J.] 535
with cumulative effect. The effect of such a penalty has been considered by A
this Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryqna State Electricity Board,
Chandigarh & Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1673 in the following terms:.

"We are unable to accept the above contention. The penalty was
imposed on April 15, 1968, and, as a result of which, he was deprived
of the monetary benefit of one increment for one year only. The B
penalty by way of stoppage of one increment for one year was without
any future effect. In other words, the appellant's increment for one
·" was stopped and such stoppage of increment will have no effect
whatsoever on his seniority. Accordingly, the Board acted illegally
and most arbitrarily in placing the juniors of the appellant above him C
in the seniority list and/or confirming the appellant in the post with
effect from Dec. I, 1969, that is, long after the date of confirmation
of the said respondents Nos.2 to 19. The question of seniority has
nothing to do with the penalty that was imposed upon the appellant.
It is apparent that for the same act of misconduct, the appellant has
been punished twice, that is, first, by the stoppage of one increment D
for one year and, second, by placing him below his juniors in the
seniority list."

The ratio of the said decision is applicable to the fact of the preseilt
case also.
E
In this view of the matter, indisputably, the respondent was entitled to
be considered for promotion after a period of three years. We have, however,
been informed that he has since been promoted to the rank of Commandant.

We, therefore, in modification of the order of the High Court that the
punishment which could have been imposed upon the respondent herein was F
reduction of pay for the period of three years with cumulative effect and,
thus, if his case is considered for promotion after the said period, no further
direction is required to be issued. We set aside the directions of the High
Court to the effect :

"The petitioner shall be entitled to the seniority on the basis of DPC G
which was held on 07.04. I 997 when his immediate junior was
promoted to the rank of Second-In Command. The petitioner shall
also be entitled to all consequential benefits which stood denied due
to punishment of loss of seniority".
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R.

A and direct that the punishment shall be reduction of pay to the minimum of
the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect

With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is allowed. However, in the
facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

B N.J. Appeal allowed.

'