http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   294        1996 SCALE  (3)611

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The  only   question  is:   whether  the   disciplinary authority could  withhold payment  of arrears  of salary for the period  of suspension from September 5, 1986 to April 2, 1987, namely,  the date  of  suspension  till  the  date  of passing of the final orders?      The respondent  was  a  conductor.  A  chargesheet  was issued imputing  misconduct in  not issuing the tickets. The Enquiry Officer, though had not recorded finding of proof of misconduct, the  disciplinary authority  did not  agree with the Enquiry  Officer’s  report  and  has  given  reasons  in support of  the disagreement,  recorded a  finding as to how the charges  have been  proved by  giving opportunity to the respondent  to  show  why  the  punishment  of  stoppage  of increments and  also with-holding  payments  of  arrears  of salary as  punishment.  The  respondent  had  submitted  his explanation.  On  consideration  thereof,  the  disciplinary authority imposed  stoppage of  three annual increments with cumulative effect  and also  with-held payment of arrears of salary for  the suspension period. The trial Court dismissed the suit.  On appeal,  it was  reversed  and  the  suit  was decreed. In S.A. No.208/93 dated November 25, 1993, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana confirmed the appellate decree.      The appellate  decree  envisages  confirmation  of  the stoppage of  three increments  with  cumulative  effect  but interfered with the order of with-holding payment of arrears of salary  as a  measure of  punishment. The appellate Court held that  the disciplinary authority had no power to impose the said punishment.      We have  heard counsel on both sides. It is an admitted position that the charges have been proved. Once the charges have been  proved, it  is settled  law that the disciplinary authority is empowered to impose appropriate punishment. The rule indicates  with-holding of payment of arrears of salary as  one   of  the   modes   of   punishment.   Under   these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

circumstances,  the   disciplinary  authority   had  rightly exercised its  power. The civil Court had no jurisdiction to substitute  the   punishment  imposed  by  the  disciplinary authority. The civil Court is not a court of appeal in civil suits.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed.  The  suit  stands dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.