Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2020

Om Pal Singh   .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Disciplinary Authority & Ors.                                               …. Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The Appellant worked as an officer of Regional Rural

Bank  Services  with  the  Muzaffarnagar  Kshetriya  Gramin

Bank  (hereinafter,  ‘the  Bank’).   On  27.05.2003,  he  was

served with a charge sheet and was asked to submit  his

reply within a period of fifteen days.  The charges that were

framed against the Appellant are:

1. You  did  not  comply  the  directions  and  regulations  of

Head Office.  2. You have worked against the interest of Bank/Injurious

work, you was unauthorised absent.  3. You are isolated for  the interest  of  Bank and to your

duties.

1 | P a g e

2. Yet another charge sheet was issued on 30.05.2003 in

which the following charges were framed:

i. You have violated discipline of bank. ii. You are accused of misconduct.  iii. You have made effort to diffuse the Bank image and on

the basis of it your worked that injurious to the health

of Bank.   

3. The Appellant submitted his reply to the said charge

sheets  dated 27.05.2003 and 30.05.2003.   The Appellant

was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.07.2003.

He  challenged  the  order  of  suspension  by  filing  a  Writ

Petition which was disposed of with a direction to the bank

to complete the inquiry within four months.  The High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad refused to grant reinstatement.

The  Inquiry  Officer  submitted  the  inquiry  report  on

23.12.2003  to  the  Disciplinary  Authority.   An  opportunity

was given to the Appellant to submit  his remarks on the

inquiry report.  Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued

to  the  Appellant  to  explain  as  to  why  he  should  not  be

dismissed  from service.    A  reply  was  submitted  by  the

Appellant  on  11.06.2004,  which  was  considered  by  the

Disciplinary Authority.  Another reply was submitted by the

2 | P a g e

Appellant on 23.06.2004.  By an order dated 05.07.2004,

the  Appellant  was  dismissed  from  service  without  any

benefits under Regulation No.38 (kha) (4) of Muzaffarnagar

Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Modified) Officer and Staff Services

Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter, ‘the Regulations’).    

4. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the order

of dismissal which was not entertained by the High Court.

Liberty  was  given  to  the  Appellant  to  file  an  appeal.

Pursuant  to  the  liberty  granted  by  the  High  Court,  the

Appellant  submitted  an  appeal  against  the  order  of  the

Disciplinary  Authority  dismissing  him from service  to  the

Board  of  Directors,  Muzaffaragar  Kshetriya  Gramin  Bank.

The said appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors by

an order dated 24.03.2005.  The Appellant was successful in

his  challenge  against  the  order  passed  by  the  Board  of

Directors dismissing his appeal before the High Court.  The

High  Court  set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  Board  of

Directors on 24.03.2005 and remanded the matter back to

the Board of Directors to consider the appeal filed by the

Appellant  afresh.   The  Board  of  Directors  dismissed  the

appeal on reconsideration.   A Writ Petition filed against the

3 | P a g e

order of the Board of Directors dismissing the appeal second

time was allowed and the Appellate Authority was directed

to apply its mind to the quantum of punishment and pass a

fresh order.   A Sub-Committee was constituted by the Board

of  Directors  and  it  was  held  by  the  Committee  that  the

charges of misconduct against the Appellant did not warrant

the  penalty  of  dismissal  from  service.   The  Committee

further  recommended  that  the  penalty  of  dismissal  be

reviewed and reduced to that of reduction of 15 stages in

payment, lower in time scale of pay for a period of eight

years with a further direction that the Appellant shall  not

earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction

and on expiry of such period, the reduction shall have the

effect  of  postponing  the  future  increments  of  his  pay  in

terms  of  Regulation  39  (1)  (b)  (i)  of  Chapter  IV  of  the

Regulations.  The recommendation made by the Committee

was accepted by the Board of Directors and the punishment

suggested by the Committee was imposed by the Board of

Directors on 10.09.2012.  The Appellant retired on attaining

the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012.

4 | P a g e

5. The  penalty  of  reduction  of  pay  of  15  stages  was

challenged by the Appellant by filing a Writ Petition.  The

High  Court  allowed  the  Writ  Petition  and  directed  the

Respondent-Disciplinary Authority to re-examine the matter

afresh.  The Disciplinary Authority, in compliance with the

order  of  the  High  Court,  reconsidered  the  matter  and

reiterated the  penalty  of  reduction  of  15 stages lower  in

time scale of  pay for a period of  eight years.   Later,  the

Disciplinary Authority modified the punishment of reduction

to 10 stages (increments) lower in time scale of pay for a

period  of  six  years  with  further  direction  that  the  officer

shall  not earn the increments of pay during the period of

said reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction

shall have the effect of postponing the future increments on

his pay.   Thereafter, the Appellant filed an appeal which was

dismissed  by  the  Appellate  Authority.   The  High  Court

upheld  the  order  passed  by  the  Appellate  Authority  by

dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.   

6. The High Court  was of  the opinion that  the charges

framed  against  the  Appellant  were  fully  proved  and  the

imposition of  penalty by the order  dated 29.10.2015 was

5 | P a g e

commensurate with the delinquency of the Appellant as the

penalty  imposed  on  the  Appellant  was  not  shockingly

disproportionate.  The High Court felt that the order dated

29.10.2015 did not warrant any interference.  

7. Notice was issued to the Respondent by this Court to

show cause as to why the Appellant shall not be entitled for

salary  for  the  period  of  suspension  from  29.07.2003  to

10.09.2012.

8. Mr.  M.  Karpaga  Vinayagam,  learned  Senior  Counsel

appearing  for  the  Appellant  submitted  that  the  Appellant

shall be entitled for payment of the salary during the period

of his suspension as the order of dismissal was set aside and

substituted by a lesser punishment.  According to him, the

principle of ‘no work no pay’ shall not apply to the instant

case.       He relied upon several judgments of this Court in

Bank of India v. T. S. Kelawala1,   Syndicate Bank v. K.

Umesh  Nayak2,  Ranchhodji  Chaturji  Thakore  v.

Superintendent  Engineer,  Gujarat  Electricity

1 (1990) 4 SCC 744 2 (1994) 5 SCC 572

6 | P a g e

Board3and Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v.

Muddaiah4  in support of his submission.  

9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar-I, learned counsel appearing for the

Bank submitted that the Appellant was not exonerated on

the charge.  The Disciplinary Authority merely reduced the

penalty from dismissal  to reduction  in time scale of  pay

which does not entitle the Appellant to claim full salary for

the  period  of  suspension.   A  charged  employee  shall  be

entitled to claim full salary for the period of suspension only

in case the order of penalty is set aside and he is held not

guilty of any of the charges.  He relied upon the judgment of

this Court in  Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad And

Others v. B. Karunakar and Others5.         

10. The only question that arises for our consideration in

the present appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to

payment  of  salary  for  the  period  of  suspension  i.e.  from

29.07.2003 to  10.09.2012.   There is  no need to reiterate

that  the  order  of  dismissal  was  set  aside  and  the

punishment of reduction in time scale of pay was imposed

3 (1996) 11 SCC 603 4 (2007) 7 SCC 689 5 (1993) 4 SCC 727

7 | P a g e

on the Appellant.   It is clear that the findings of the Inquiry

Officer that the charges against the Appellant were proved

and have not been disturbed.  Reduction of the penalty from

dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not

result in exoneration of the Appellant of the charges framed

against him. However,  it is for the Disciplinary Authority to

take a decision as to how the period of suspension shall be

treated.   While  passing  the  impugned  order  dated

29.10.2015,  the  Disciplinary  Authority  held  that  the

Appellant  shall  not  be  entitled  for  any  payment  from

06.07.2004 to 29.08.2012.

11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr.6, this

Court  dealt  with the issue regarding the entitlement  of  a

delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential

benefits in all cases of reinstatement as follows:

“17. There  is  also  a  misconception  that  whenever

reinstatement  is  directed,  'continuity  of  service'  and

'consequential  benefits'  should  follow,  as  a  matter  of

course.  The  disastrous  effect  of  granting  several

promotions as a 'consequential benefit' to a person who

has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have

the benefit  of  necessary experience for  discharging the

6 (2007) 2 SCC 433

8 | P a g e

higher  duties  and  functions  of  promotional  posts,  is

seldom visualized while  granting consequential  benefits

automatically.  Whenever  courts  or  Tribunals  direct

reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the

facts and circumstances to decide whether 'continuity of

service'  and/or  'consequential  benefits'  should  also  be

directed. We may in this behalf refer to the decisions of

this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narasa Goud [2003 (2) SCC

212], A.P.S.R.T.C.  v.  Abdul  Kareem [2005  (6)  SCC  36]

and R.S.R.T.C.  v.  Shyam Bihari  Lal  Gupta [2005 (7)  SCC

406].”       

12. It  was  further  held  in  the  said  judgment  that  if

reinstatement  is  a  consequence  of  imposition  of  a  lesser

punishment,  neither  back-wages nor  continuity  of  service

nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary

consequence of such reinstatement.  This Court went on to

hold  that  where  the  misconduct  was  held  to  be  proved,

reinstatement  by  itself  is  a  consequential  benefit  arising

from imposition of a lesser punishment.  However, this Court

was of the opinion that award of back wages for the period

when  the  employee  has  not  worked  may  amount  to

rewarding  the  delinquent  employee  and  punishing  the

9 | P a g e

employer  for  taking  action  against  the  misconduct

committed by the employee, which should be avoided.

13. Following the aforementioned judgment, we are of the

opinion that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in not

paying the salary  for  the period of  suspension cannot  be

said to be contrary to law.  

14. For  the  aforementioned  reasons,  the  appeal  is

dismissed.   

     .................................J.

                                                     [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                                                                   .. …...........................J.

                                                      [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, January 14, 2020.

10 | P a g e