Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Dastagir Naalsab Mulani

1. Writ Petition Nos. 9296 of 2007 and 6725 of 2007 are not on Board. Since common question is involved they are taken on board and are decided along with Writ Petition No. 8909 of 2007.

2. Ms. Manesh, learned counsel appearing for Respondents would submit that the name of Respondent in Writ Petition NO. 9296/2007 is changed to Mr. Dastagir Naalsab Mulani. It appears that the said correction has already been carried out in Writ Petition NO. 8909/2007. Accordingly, leave granted to correct the name of Respondent in Writ Petition No. 9296/2007 as Dastagir Naalsab Mulani. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

3. The short issue involved in these three Petitions is about permissibility to give “cumulative” effect to the penalty imposed under provisions of Regulation 7 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for Employees of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation [for short “D & A Procedure”]. It appears that in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against Respondents in all the three Petitions, punishments of either withholding of increments or reduction of pay are imposed. However, while imposing such punishments, cumulative effect is given to the same. The Labour Courts in the Awards which are impugned in the present Petitions, have held that Regulation 7 of D and A Procedure did not permit giving of cumulative effect to the punishment of withholding of increments or reduction of pay. The Petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Labour Court.

4. I have heard Ms. Bhansali, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner-Corporation. According to her, Regulation 7 of D & A Procedure as applicable at the relevant time clearly permitted the Petitioner-Corporation to give cumulative effect to the punishment of withholding of increments or reduction of pay. That it was not necessary to specify cumulative effect in the permissible penalties imposable under Regulation 7. That the D & A Procedure mere prescribes the penalties that can be imposed and it is for the disciplinary authorities to decide whether to give cumulative effect to the penalties or not. That therefore non-inclusion of the word ‘cumulative’ in Regulation 7 is of no consequence. She would submit that the penalty is required to be imposed by taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct committed by the employee. That the authorities have accordingly decided to give cumulative effect to the punishments of withholding of increments or reduction of pay after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct. She would further submit that upon infliction of penalty of withholding of increments or reduction of pay, the employee cannot be permitted draw increments during currency of penalty and this is how cumulative effect to the penalty would operate.

5. Per contra, Ms. Manesh, the learned counsel appearing for Respondents would oppose the Petitions and support the orders passed by the Labour Court. She would place on record the amended Discipline and Appeal Procedure notified vide Circular dated 10th August, 2007, in which now the words “cumulative effect” has been added in punishments of withholding of increments or reduction of pay. She would pray for dismissal of the Petitions.

6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties. Regulation 7 of D & A Procedure which was in vogue at the time of imposition of penalties on the Respondents read thus: “7. The following punishments may be awarded for good and sufficient reasons, for committing any of the misconducts/minor lapses and delinquencies mentioned in the Schedules ‘A’ & ‘B’ commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct/ minor lapses and delinquencies. Class of misconduct Punishment Appealable or Nonappealable Minor lapses and delinquencies (a) Warning. (b) Reprimand.

(c) Fine upto 1/10th of the pay.

(d) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders, if it does not exceed 1/10th of pay of the employee. Non -appealable Non-appealable Non-appealable[if the amount is not more than Rs.50/-] Non-appealable Acts of misconduct. (a) Recovery from pay of whole or part of pecuniary Appealable. loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders if exceeding 1/10th of wages. (b) Withholding increment for a period not exceeding three annual increment.

(c) Stoppage of promotion for a period not exceeding

(d) Rversion to a next below the substantive post held by employee charged.

(e) Reduction to lower pay by not more than 3 stages in the time-scale of pay of the post substantively held by an employee charged. (f) Discharge from service of the Corporation. (g) Dismissal from service of the Corporation. Provided that the punishment for any of the acts or misconduct mentioned at Items 4, 7(a) to (j), 12(a) and (b), 39, 42 of the Schedule ‘A’ shall be either discharge or dismissal from services of the Corporation. While awarding punishment for the default under these types of misconducts, the Competent Authority shall ensure thate the guit of the employee charged is conclusively proved on the basis of available evidence and the specific instructions issued from time to time by the Administration are scrupulously followed.

7. Thus, plain reading of Regulation 7 indicates that though punishments of withholding of increments or reduction to lower pay could be imposed, it was impermissible to give cumulative effect to such penalty. If cumulative effect is given to the penalty of withholding of increments or reduction of pay, the employee not only draws less pay during currency of penalty, the cumulative effect postpones the future increments of pay. Therefore, a specific provisions needs to be made in the rule empowering the authority to give cumulative effect to the penalty of withholding of increments or reduction of pay. Perusal of Rule 7, as it existed at the time of imposition of penalty on Respondents does not indicate that cumulative effect was permitted to be given to the penalties of withholding of increments or reduction of pay. This aspect is made clear by the amended D & A Procedure introduced vide Circular dated 10th August, 2007. In the amended Regulation 7, now, it is permissible to give cumulative effect to the penalties of withholding of increments or reduction of pay. In this connection, the amended Regulation 7 reads thus: ७. अनुसूची “ ” अ व “ ” ब या मध्या उल्लेख केलेल्या गैरवर्तणुके च्या केत्या पैके / किकेरके!ळ चीके व अपैची र #पैके के!णुर्तही केत्या केल्या बद्दले उचिचीर्त व पैरशा के रणु #सू ठी गैरवर्तणुके च्या केत्या च्या / किकेरके!ळ चीके व अपैची र #च्या गै #भी या शा अनुरूपै ख ले ले प्रम णु चिशाक्षा देर्त यार्त ले. गैरवर्तणुके ची वगै चिशाक्षा अचिपैले या!ग्या किंकेव अचिपैले नु केरर्त याण्या या!ग्या (१) किकेरके!ळ चीके व अपैची र (अ) र्त के दे देणु (ब) ठीपैके देणु (के) वर्तनु प्रदे नु अचि2चिनुयाम १९३६ म[2] ले र्तरर्तदे नुसू र र्त नु टक्के पैया8र्तची दे#ड. (ड) हीयागैया मळ आदेशा #ची भी#गै केल्या मळ मही म#डळ ले झा लेल्या आर्थि=के नुकेसू नु ची पैणुर्त: किंकेव अ#शार्त> भीरपै ई म्हीणुनु वर्तनु र्तनु केमके ऱ्या च्या वर्तनु च्या १/१० पैक्षा अचि2के नुसूले र्तर केर वया ची वसूले. अचिपैले नु केरर्त याण्या या!ग्या रक्केम रुपैया ५० पैक्षा जा स्र्त नुसूले र्तर अपै ले नु केरर्त याण्या या!ग्या. ( म त्र, ज्या ज्या वळ वर्तनु प्रदे नु अचि2चिनुयाम र्त वर्तनु मया देर्त व ढ केले जा ईले, त्या त्या वळ के याद्या च्या र्तरर्तदे नुसू र र्त नु टक्के पैढ ले रक्केम अपै ले या!ग्या र ही ले) (२) गैरवर्तणुके ची केत्या (अ) हीयागैया मळ किंकेव आदेशा #ची भी#गै केल्या मळ मही म#डळ ले झा लेल्या आर्थि=के नुकेसू नु ची पैणुर्त: किंकेव अ#शार्त> भीरपै ई म्हीणुनु वर्तनु र्तनु केमके ऱ्या च्या वर्तनु च्या १/१० पैक्षा अचि2के असूल्या सू केर वया ची वसूले. (ब) र्त नु व र्थिLके वर्तनु व ढ पैक्षा अचि2के नु ही इर्तक्या के ले व[2] सू ठी वर्तनु व ढ सू#चिचीर्त किंकेव चिवनु सू#चिचीर्त पैरिरणु म नु र!खणु. (के) र्त नु वL पैक्षा अचि2के नु ही इर्तक्या के ले व[2] सू ठी बढर्त = #चिबवणु. (ड) आर!पै र्त व्यक्ती नु 2 रणु केलेल्या के याम पैदे च्या लेगैर्तख लेच्या पैदे वर पैदे वनुर्त. (इ) आर!पै र्त केमची ऱ्या नु के यामस्वरूपै 2 रणु केलेल्या वर्तनु च्या सूमया श्रेणु र्त ले र्त नु पैक्षा अचि2के नु ही इर्तक्या टप्प्या नु वर्तनु सू#चिचीर्त किंकेव चिवनु सू#चिचीर्त पैरिरणु म नु ख ले आणुणु. (फ) मही म#डळ च्या सूवर्तनु मक्ती केरणु. (गै) मही म#डळ च्या सूवर्तनु बडर्तफ केरणु. अचिपैले या!ग्या पैर#र्त अनुसूची “ ” अ ची ब ब ४.७ (अ) र्त (जा), १२ (अ) व (ब) ३४, ३९, ४२, ५७, ५८ व ५९ या मध्या उल्लेख केलेल्या के!णुत्या ही गैरवर्तणुके च्या केत्या सू ठी चिशाक्षा मही म#डळ च्या सूवर्तनु मक्ती केरणु किंकेव बडर्तफ केरणु ही र ही ले. या प्रके रच्या गैरकेत्या सू ठी केलेल्या अपैर 2 #नु चिशाक्षा देर्त नु आर!चिपैर्त केमची ऱ्या ची गैन्ही उपैलेब्2 पैर व्य च्या आ[2] र चिनुणुया केरिरत्या चिसूद्ध झा ले आही आचिणु प्रशा सूनु नु वळ!वळ प्रस्र्तर्त केलेल्या चिवचिनुर्दिदेष्ट सूचीनु के टके!रपैणु पै ळल्या गैल्या आहीर्त या ची सूक्षाम प्र चि2के र ख त्र केर ले.

8. If the disciplinary authority was really empowered under the old D & A Procedure to give cumulative effect in absence of provision to that effect, there was no need to specifically include the words “with or without cumulative effect” (सू#चिचीर्त किंकेव चिवनु सू#चिचीर्त पैरिरणु म नु) in the amended D & A Procedure. Ms. Bhansali’s submission that the amended Rule merely clarifies what already existed cannot be countenanced. Inclusion of power to give cumulative effect to punishments of withholding of increments or reduction of pay in the amended D & A Procedure leaves no matter of doubt that the Old Rules which apply in present cases did not empower the Disciplinary Authorities to give cumulative effect to the punishments for permanently postponing the future increments of pay.

9. In my view therefore, no patent error can be traced in the orders passed by the Labour Court in holding that it was impermissible for the Petitioner-Corporation to give cumulative effect to the punishments imposed on Respondents. The impugned orders are unexceptionable. The Writ Petitions must fail.

10. All the three Petitions are accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. Rule is discharged in all Petitions. Interim Application is disposed of.