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

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SWARAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1996

BENCH: K.RAMASWAMY, G.T.NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      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 in limine.      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 authoritys’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 trial Court decreed  the suit. On appeal, it was confirmed and the second appeal, as stated earlier, was dismissed in limine.      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 imposed any penalty

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

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 report, the infraction thereof makes  no difference  in view  of the  facts in this case.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  judgment  and decree of  all the  courts stand set aside. As a result, the suit stands  dismissed.  No costs.