AN

ASSIGNMENT ON

MAJOR AND MINOR PENALTIES

MASTER OF LAWS

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Deepti Monga Arjumand Syed
Associate Professor 19MLL1044
(UILS) Chandigarh university LL.M. (UILS)

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY
GHARUAN, MOHALI, PUNJAB, INDIA-140413

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1 Introduction 3
2 Minor Penalties 4-8
3 Major Penalties 9-12
4 Table of Cases 13
5 Conclusion 13
6 Bibliography 14

2
1 .INTRODUCTION
Departmental Proceedings mean the proceedings taken by the competent authority against any of
its employee, in disciplinary cases. These involve measures for enforcing discipline among the
employees. These are administrative-cum-legal proceedings.1

The Government of India is a super-employer in charge of the largest community of employees

of all types, ministerial, supervisory, executive and managerial, apart from its industrial workers.
As a model employer, it has to observe all the laws of the land in dealing with its employees,
right from their recruitment to their retirement. The government has to ensure that its employees
behave themselves, enforce discipline and promote loyalty for the sake of smooth conduct of
public administration, prevent corruption practices and punish errant employees, through
appropriate disciplinary measures. It is, therefore, the prerogative of the Government to hold
disciplinary proceedings. However, this prerogative must be used for public good, in a fair and
reasonable manner.2 There is no bar in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings
after superannuation of an employee.

In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar,3a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that
merely because a Government servant had retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation, he could not escape the liability for misconduct and negligence or financial
irregularities, which he might have committed during the period of his service and that the
Government was entitled to withhold or reduce the pension granted to a Government servant, by
conducting enquiry proceedings even after retirement of the employee.

Imposition of Minor Penalties

Where, after the receipt of the report, the disciplinary authority, after applying its own mind to
the whole case, comes to its own independent conclusions, uninfluenced by any other person,
that a minor penalty is sufficient, then a show cause notice, indicating a particular penalty to be

1
Kumar Narender; Law relating to Government Servants & management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service
law);2017
2
State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, AIR 2001 SC 343
3
(1988) 2 SCC 5211

3
imposed, together with a copy of the enquiry report, shall be served upon the delinquent. After
considering his explanation thereon, the penalty should be imposed.

It is, thus, held that the procedure contained in the relevant Service Rules, must be complied with
while imposing a minor penalty on the delinquent employee.

Imposition of Major Penalties

If, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and applying its mind to the whole case,
the disciplinary authority, is of the opinion that any of the major penalties, should be imposed on
the delinquent, it would not be necessary to afford him any opportunity of making representation
on the penalty proposed to be imposed. An order imposing such a penalty can be passed straight
away. 4 But rather should be accompanied with a show cause notice and copy of the Enquiry
report before imposing penalty otherwise it would be violative of natural justice.

2. MINOR AND MAJOR PENALTIES

The Minor Penalties and the Major Penalties in Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 have
been graded in order of the severity to be awarded to a charged Government servant in
proportion to the gravity of misconduct/negligence which has given rise to the charge-sheet.

Minor Penalties under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

(i) Censure
(ii) Withholding of his promotion
(iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to
the government by negligence or breach of orders
(a) Reduction to a 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.

4
Rule 15(4), C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965

4
 (b) Withholding of increments of pay. 5

The minor penalties will be explained in detailed as follows:

(1) Censure under Rule 11(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

An order of “Censure” is a formal and public act intended to convey that the person concerned
has been guilty of some blameworthy act or omission for which it has been found necessary to
award him a formal punishment. It is a formal punishment and imposed for “good and sufficient
reason” after following the prescribed procedure. A record of the punishment so imposed is kept
on the officer’s confidential roll and the fact that he has been ‘censured’ will have its bearing on
the assessment of his merit or suitability for promotion to higher posts.

Imposition of the penalty of censure on a government servant does not by itself stand against the
consideration of such person for promotion or for the person to appear at a departmental/
promotional examination.

In B.D. Gupta vs State of Haryana,6 the apex court held that before imposing the penalty of
censure a show-cause notice must be given and he should be given a reasonable opportunity for
defense.

Censure and Warning Distinguished

A"censure" may be distinguished from "warning". While censure is a formal penalty, warning is
an administrative action. It is an administrative device in the hands of the superior officer for
cautioning the subordinate officials with a view to toning up efficiency and maintaining
discipline.

5
Dr. Babita Devi Pathania; Service laws in India; 2016; Chapter 11

6
AIR 1972 SC 2472

5
Sometimes, circumstances justify the mention of warning in the officials’ Confidential Roll.
However, the mere fact that it is so mentioned in the Confidential Roll does not convert a
"warning" into a "censure".

When a copy of warning is kept in the Confidential Roll of the employee, it will be taken as
adverse entry. In that case, the employee concerned will have the right to represent against it in
accordance with the rules. The

procedure laid down for imposing minor penalties is to be followed in such cases. Though,
mention of a warning in the Confidential Roll, would have the effect of making it apparent that
the employee concerned has done something blameworthy and to some extent may also effect
the assessment of his merit and suitability for promotion, it would not, however, amount to the
imposition of the penalty of censure, because it was not intended that any formal punishment
should be inflicted.

In the case of R.K. Das v. Coal India Limited7,Refusal to consider the name for promotion only
on this ground has been held illegal. If at the end of the year the authority feels that the conduct
of the employee has not improved despite the warning, it may make mention of such warning in
confidential report and copy of it to be kept in confidential roll file.

Withholding of Promotion under Rule 11(ii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Every Government servant has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion. Generally,
his promotion is considered on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and an overall assessment of his
service record. An order for withholding of promotion should clearly state the period for which
promotion is withheld.

7
1999(1) SLR (cal) 58.

6
In JagatNarain v. Food Corporation of India,8 the promotion orders of the petitioner were
cancelled as he was facing disciplinary proceeding on the day of his promotion. Five vigilance
cases were pending against him. The sealed cover procedure adopted by the respondent in
respect of the petitioner, in denying him the promotion, was held not to be arbitrary, unfair or
unjust, which might warrant interference by the court.

The imposition of this penalty shall have a two-way effect, i.e., firstly, the factum of punishment
may stand in his way of getting selected for promotion; and secondly, even if he is selected, the
promotion shall take effect only after the period of punishment is over. So the penalty being
imposed must be free from ambiguity and vagueness. Scope of penalty must be clearly brought
out in the order without leaving any scope for interpretation or filing up the gap through
arguments such as ‘by necessary implication’.

(2) Recovery from Pay under Rule 11(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Every Government servant is expected to exercise the same vigilance in respect of public money
as in respect of his own money. He should realize that he will be held responsible for any loss
sustained by the government on account of his negligence or due to breach of orders by him.
Therefore, where some pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government due to his act or
omission, the Government by imposing this penalty can order the recovery of whole or part of
the loss. In such a case, the government shall correctly assess, in a realistic manner, the
contributory negligence on the part of the employee and may order the recovery. Further, it must
give an action oriented notice and opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned. However,
the government cannot recover the amount more than the actual loss. In brief, the following
requirements are to be met for imposing this penalty:

 Recovery can be ordered only from pay, not from pension or allowances
 Recovery cannot be ordered for an amount more than the actual loss to the government
 The loss for which the recovery is to be ordered, must be pecuniary
 The loss must have been caused to the govt.

8
2008 (3) SLR 316

7
  The loss has been caused either by negligence or breach of orders.

In Gurbax singh v. State of Punjab,9the government servant, a Sub-Divisional Officer was

charge-sheeted on the ground that he committed negligence by giving his personal key to the
cash clerk, because of which, theft of the government money took place. He was held liable and
the government ordered the recovery of the amount to the extent of 60% of the loss. The action
of the government was upheld as perfectly legal and just.In M.P.S.A.I.D Corpn. V. Jahan
Khan10,it has been held that the penalty of recovery from pay cannot be imposed without
conducting an enquiry as otherwise it is impossible to arrive at the correct finding with regard to
causing of the loss by the employee by his negligence or breach of duty and with regard to
quantum of loss.

(3) Withholding of Increments under Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it has been held to be a
minor penalty. However, when the increments are withheld with cumulative effect, which results
in cutting off the employee’s increments forever in his upward march of earning higher scale of
pay, it has to be treated as a major penalty, which would require the holding of a full-fledged
enquiry.

As a measure of minor penalty, the increment can be withheld for a specified period only. Unless
a specific order for withholding of increment payable to a government servant is passed by the
disciplinary authority, he earns increments in a scale of pay, as a matter of right and as a matter
of course. Stoppage of increment for one year w/o any future effect has nothing to do with
determination of his seniority. Placing him below his juniors, on this ground, would be illegal. 11

An order of withholding increments is quasi-judicial in nature. It must be passed after application

of mind by the authority on the employee’s explanation to the show cause notice.This penalty
takes effect from the date of increment falling due to the employee after the issue of the
punishment order. Therefore, the order cannot affect the increment which was due to the

9
1996 (1) SLR (P. & H.) 683
10
AIR 2007 SC 3153.
11
Shiv Kumar v. Hy. S.E.B., 1988(3) SLR (SC) 524.

8
employee prior to the issue of the order, even though, the increment may not have actually been
drawn.12The following shall not amount to penalty-

(a) Withholding of increments for failure of the employee to pass any departmental
examination in accordance with the Service Rules or standing Orders governing the
Service;
(b) Stoppage of government servant at the efficiency bar (E.B.) in the time scale of pay on
the ground of his unfitness to cross the efficiency bar.

3 Major Penalties under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

While the major penalties of compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal from
service have been included as clause (vii), (viii) and (ix) of the Rule 11, the penalty reduction to
a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or Service has been incorporated therein as clause (vi).
This clause also provides that while imposing the penalty, the Disciplinary Authority or the
Appellate/Revision Authority is also required to indicate in the penalty order whether or not the
individual charged government servant would be eligible for restoration to the grade/post or
service from which he was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration and the
conditions for such restoration.it would, therefore, be seen that the penalty has been provided to
be awarded to an individual who may not be sent out of Government Service( through
dismissal/removal etc.,) but who needs to be given a very severe penalty in view of the gravity of
his misconduct.

The major penalties have been explained in detail as follows:

(1) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay for a specified period, which shall ordinarily be
not a bar to promotion under Rule 11(v)

12
It may be because the employee was on leave or other administrative reasons.

9
An order imposing the penalty should invariably specify the stage in terms of rupees to which the
employee is reduced. It should also indicate the extent to which the order should operate to
postpone future increments.

When a government servant is reduced to particular stage, his pay will remain constant at the
stage for the entire period of reduction. The date from which the order is to take effect and the
period for which the penalty will be operative should be indicated in the order. It should also
indicate the extent to which the future increments are postponed, unless the intention is that the
reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period.13

The penalty has the following implications:

 The penalty can be imposed for a specified period only and it should be a reasonable one.
 The reduction in pay can be ordered to any lower stage in the time scale, but cannot be
fixed at an amount below the minimum of scale.
 It is obligatory for the authority to make orders-
- Whether the employee will draw his nominal increments during the occurrence of
punishment.
- Whether the reduction will have effect of postponing his future increments.

In R.K. Bharati v. Union of India,14 the Delhi Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal held
that if during the period of operation of this penalty, the public servant is allowed to draw his
normal increment, then the question of future increments does not arise. The reason is that if
there is only reduction in pay but no withholding of increment, how it can postpone any future
increment.15

(2) Reduction to a lowergrade, post or Service

13
Kumar Narender; Law relating to Government Servants & management of Disciplinary Proceedings (Service
law);2017

14
GB CB (1986) Vol. II p. 80
15
Dr. Babita Devi Pathania; Service laws in India; 2016; Chapter 11

10
It has been held that that the power to reduce in rank by way of punishment can only be
exercised in respect of those employees who were appointed by promotion to a higher post,
service, etc. Therefore, reduction in rank of an employee initially recruited to a higher time-scale,
grade or service or post to a lower time-scale, grade, service or post is not permissible.

Again, a directly appointed employee cannot be reverted to a lower post against which he was
never appointed.

(3) Compulsory Retirement under Rule 11 (viii)

Though the penalty of Compulsory Retirement does not find a mention in Article 311 of the
Constitution, the apex court has held that the penalty is deemed to be included in the term
‘Removal from Service’.16 The penalty of compulsory retirement differs from removal or
dismissal from service in regard to retirement benefits. While dismissal or removal from service
entails forfeiture of past services and deprivation of retirement benefits, the person on whom the
penalty of compulsory retirement is imposed, remains entitled to the proportionate pension on
the basis of the service rendered by him. There is also no bar to his re-employment under the
Government.

Compulsory retirement is more or less akin to refusal to employ as a servant. There is no element
of punishment when a candidate is refused employment. Similarly, a servant is not punished
when he is compulsory retired on the ground that he cannot render useful services to the state.
There is hardly any difference between the rule authorizing compulsory retirement and the rule
that the Government servant will

be retired on completing 25 years qualifying service with the option to the government to permit
him to remain in service for five years more. There are cases where even after the age of 60 years
some officials are refused extension and some are not refused. Government servants who are
refused extension cannot claim that they have been punished. What is sought to be stressed is
that compulsory retirement is not punishment even if the order making the servant to

16
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416

11
compulsorily retire had recited the fact that he had outlived his utility and the order so made
would not amount to be a punitive order.17

(4) Removal from service under Rule 11(viii)

Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the
government

(5) Dismissal under Rule 11(ix)

Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under
the government.

Difference between removal from service and dismissal from service

Punishment of removal from service is virtually dismissal from service. Only difference between
dismissal and removal is that in the latter case there is no disqualification for reemployment.

InDattatrayaMahadevNadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay18it has

been explained that removal and dismissal from service stand on the same footing and both bring
about termination of service though every termination of service does not amount to removal or
dismissal. The only difference between the two is that in the case of dismissal the employee is
disqualified from future employment while in the case of removal he is not debarred from getting
future employment. Therefore, dismissal has more serious consequence in comparison to
removal. 19

17
Abdul Ahmed v. inspector General of Police, AIR 1965 All 142
18
(1992) 2 SCC 547

19
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/mobile/forum/details.asp?mod_id=10200

12
4 .TABLE OF CASES

1) B.D. Gupta vs State of Haryana

2) DattatrayaMahadevNadkarni (Dr.) v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
3) Gurbax singh v. State of Punjab
4) JagatNarain v. Food Corporation of India
5) M.P.S.A.I.D Corpn. V. Jahan Khan
6) R.K. Bharati v. Union of India
7) R.K. Das v. Coal India Limited
8) State of Maharashtra v. M.H. Mazumdar

5. CONCLUSION
After discussing a wide variety of penalties, one thing is clear that these legislative sanctions are
very important to ensure the smooth and congenial working of the government departments. But
the one thing which has to be taken care of is that penalties which are imposed are a result of
conscious judicious thinking and in consonance with the principles of Natural Justice. It basically
means that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the charged person to show his case that
why he should not be penalised. A show cause notice along with enquiry report should be
submitted before penalising a person.

13
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK SOURCES:

 Kumar Prof. Narender, ‘law relating to government servants and Management of

disciplinary proceedings’; Allahabad law agency, Haryana, 2014.
 Dr. Babita Devi Pathania, ‘service Lawsin India’; New Era Law Publications,
Faridabad(Haryana), 2016.

WEB SOURCES:

 http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/09/penalties.html
 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/mobile/forum/details.asp?mod_id=10200
 http://agl.tnebnet.org/pens/rettips/punishret.html

14
15