Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. versus SWARAN SINGH
- Decided
- 24 January 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 1 S.C.R. 539 · 1997 INSC 59
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
p. 539, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, made on October 20, 1993 in RSA No. 2076 of 1993 dismissing the appeal in limine.
p. 539, margin G
The only question is : whether the appellant is empowered to impose 15% cut in the pension of the respondent as a measure of penalty. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and pending proceedings, he retired from service. The disciplinary authority passed the order before his superannuation on February 15, 1987 holding that misconduct on his part was established; however, a minor penalty was imposed. But the higher authority, on appeal, gave notice to the respondent and disagreed with the disciplinary authority's conclusion and imposed 15% cut in the pension payable to the respondent by proceedings dated March 30, 1989. The respondent filed a civil suit. The t6al Court decreed that ·suit. On appeal, it was confirmed and the seconc! appeal, as stated earlier, was dismissed in limine.
pp. 539–540, margin G
It is seen that notice was issued by this Court by order dated April 19, 1996 confined to the question whether the power of the authority to withhold whole or any part of the pension is correct or not. It is seen that Rule 15(v)( c) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 provides that "subject to the provisions of Rule 14, a Government employee may prefer an appeal against all or any of the orders and while disposing of the appeal the appellate authority has power to order (c) reducing or withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension admissible to him under the rules". It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 11 casts duty to supply enquiry report along with the penalty which has not been supplied. Therefore, the order is violative of Rule 11 of the Rules. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the impugned order came to be passed on appeal by the appellate authority. We have already held that it has the power and authority to impose cut in the pension. It is not a case where the primary authority ir.1posed any penalty without supplying copy of the report and action was taken thereon. Under these circumstances, though Rule 11 provides for the supply of copy of the enquiry rep0rt, the infraction thereof makes no difference in view of the facts in this case.
p. 540, margin C
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The .iudgment and decree of all the courts stands set aside. As a result, the suit stands dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
p. 540, margin F