What is distinction between order withholding increment with cumulative effect and one withholding increment without cumulative effect?

 The difference between an order withholding increment with cumulative effect and the one withholding increment without cumulative effect has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board, Now Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Raj Kumar Goel, reiterating the view taken in the case of Uttam Kumar vs. Delhi Jal Board, reported in MANU/DE/0135/2001 : 2001(4) S.C.T. 136: 2001 IVAD (Delhi) 166. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when increment is withheld without cumulative effect, it is in the realm of minor penalty and when it is done with cumulative effect, it could be in the compartment of major penalty. It further held that in the latter case, there is permanent postponement of the increment and in the former case, the increment withholding is only for a specific period and it is required to be released after expiration of the period for which the increment is directed to be withheld. That would mean that when the increment is directed to be withheld without cumulative effect, there would be only suspension of increment for the period for which it is withheld and the moment withholding period expires, the suspension of the increment would stand removed and that increment would be payable along with the increment payable in the year in which the withholding effect disappears.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition Nos. 425 and 541 of 2018

Decided On: 23.07.2019

 Nilkanth Dhyanoba Jogdande Vs.  Panjabrao Deshumukh Krishi Vidyapeeth

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre and S.M. Modak, JJ.

Citation: 2020(1) MHLJ 897

Print Page

Whether minor penalty imposed on government servant can be quashed if show cause notice issued to him was vague?

We find that the Petition deserves to be allowed on two grounds. Firstly, perusal of the show cause notice would reveal that allegations made against the Petitioner in the show cause notice are totally vague in nature. It is settled law that if the allegations in the show cause notice are vague, it would not be possible for delinquent to effectively submit his reply and therefore the same would violate the principles of natural justice. Secondly, Petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the impugned order does not give any reasons.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2014

Decided On: 16.01.2019

Manik Abaso Jadhav  Vs. Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and N.J. Jamadar, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 693

Print Page

Whether High court can impose minor penalty of censure on Judge of subordinate Judiciary?

The Disciplinary Committee considered the report of the Inquiry Officer and the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner and decided to award the minor penalty of censure. We do not find any reason to hold that the minor penalty of censure was not warranted. In our considered opinion, the decision of the disciplinary committee is fully justified in the facts of this case. We have also noted that the Inquiry Officer considered the allegations made in the complaint and has recorded her findings on most of the allegations.

7. Now coming to the powers of the Disciplinary Committee, Article 235 of the Constitution sets out that the control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto shall be vested in the High Court. In the case of Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0073/1974 : (1974) 2 SCC 831. a Bench of seven Judges, considering the scope of Article 235 of the Constitution, held that the High Court is invested with, under the said Article control of subordinate judiciary. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shirishkumar Rangrao Patil and Anr. MANU/SC/0692/1997 : (1997) 6 SCC 339 the Supreme Court held that after the appointment of a judicial officer by the Governor, the power to transfer, maintain discipline and keep control over them vests in the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court is first among the Judges of the High Court and the action taken is by the High Court and not by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity, nor by the Committee of Judges. For the convenient transaction of administrative business in the Court, the Full Court of the Judges of the High Court generally passes a resolution authorizing the Chief Justice to constitute various committees including the committee to deal with disciplinary matters pertaining to the subordinate judiciary.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5203 of 2010

Decided On: 23.09.2010

Shiwanand Bhagwanrao Kulkarni Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.H. Marlapalle and A.A. Sayed, JJ.

Citation: 2010(6) MHLJ 827

Print Page