Holding

The stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a regular enquiry; its imposition without such enquiry is illegal, and the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an appeal.

Summary

The respondent, a branch manager of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd, was found to have caused a loss of Rs 16,903.41 by failing to recover rent on machinery he had let out. The Managing Director, acting as disciplinary authority, imposed a composite penalty of recovering the loss from the respondent’s salary and stopping three increments with cumulative effect, without holding a regular departmental enquiry. The respondent challenged the order by a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution; the High Court set aside the penalty, holding that the stoppage of increments is a major penalty requiring an enquiry. The corporation appealed, contending that the penalty was minor and that the existence of an appeal remedy barred the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that under the corporation’s Service (Recruitment and Selection) Regulations, stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty, that a regular enquiry is mandatory, and that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal because natural‑justice principles were violated. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether stoppage of increments with cumulative effect constitutes a major or minor penalty under the Service Regulations.
Whether a regular departmental enquiry is required before imposing such a penalty.
Whether the writ petition under Articles 226/227 is maintainable despite the existence of an appeal remedy.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227

Subjects

Service lawDisciplinary actionMajor penaltyMinor penaltyDepartmental enquiryNatural justiceWrit jurisdictionArticles 226 and 227Employment lawPenalty of stoppage of increments

Judgment

M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LID. A
ANDANR.
v.
JAHANKHAN

SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
B
(DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.)

Service Law:

Punishment-Maj01: penalty-Monetary loss (o employer due to alleged. C
dereliction in duty by employee-Composite penalty order consequently
passed by disciplinary authority directing recovery of monetary loss from
employee and stoppage of his three increments with cumulative effect-Held:
Jn context of the Service Regulations, the penalty imposed was a major
penalty, envisaging a regular enquiry before punishment-Since no such D
procedure followed, High Court justified in holding the penalty imposed as
illegal and without jurisdiction-M.P. State Agro Industries Development
Corporaiion limited Service (Recruitment and Selection) Regulations, 1976.

Punishment-Imposition of. by disciplinary authority-Judicial
Review-Scope of E
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 and 227-Writjurisdiction-
Exercise of. when alternative remedy available-Scope of-Discussed

Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226-Penalty order appealable
in terms of the Service Regulations-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Held: F
Maintainable, since the penalty order was per se illegal being violative of
the principles of natural justice-M.P. State Agro Industries Development
Corporation Limited Service (Recruitment and Selection) Regulations, 1976-
Administrative Law-Principles of natural justice.

Respondent caused monetary loss to his employer, Appellant- G
Corporation, by alleged dereliction in duty. The Managing Director of
Appellant-corporation, in his capacity as the disciplinary authority, imposed
penalty in form of recovery of amount equivalent to the monetary loss from
Respondent as also stoppage of his three increments with cumulative effect.
715 H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A Respondent filed writ petition before High Court challenging the order
passed by the disciplinary authority. High Court held that the penalty of
stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was a major penalty, which could
not be imposed without holding a regular departmental enquiry and
accordingly set aside the order of the disciplinary authority.

B In appeals before this Court, it was contended by the Appellant-
Corporation that under M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation
Limited Service (Recruitment and Selection) Regulations of 1976 punishment
of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty and,
therefore, no regular enquiry is contemplated thereunder. It was further
C contended that an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal being
available to the Respondent in terms of the aforesaid Regulations, the High
Court should not have entertained the writ petition.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

D HELD:l. The power of punishment to an employee is within the
discretion of the employer and ordinarily the cou~s do not interfere, unless·
it is found that either the enquiry, proceedings or punishment is vitiated 4

because of non-observance of the relevant Rules and Regulations or principles
of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend etc. or that
the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an
E employee. (Para SJ [720-B]

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, [1997] 3
SCC 72 and La/it Popli v. Canara Bank & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC S83, relied on.

2.1. A bare reading of the scheme of the M.P. State Agro Industries
F Development Corporation Limited Service (Recruitment and Selection)
Regulations of 1976 would show that there is a clear demarcation of quantum
of punishment between the minor lapses, delinquencies and acts of misconduct
It is evident that having regard to the nature of acts of omission and
commission, the punishment prescribed for minor lapses, and delinqueneies,.
G ostensibly not having perpetual effect, have been made non-appealable in
comparison to the punishments for acts of misconduct, which include recovery
of whole or a part of pecuniary loss, exceeding Rs.SO/-, caused to.the
Corporation, withholding of increments for a specific period, termination of
services, removal etc., which can all be characterized as major punishments.
Precisely for this reason, all punishments falling in the latter category have
H been made appealable. The perceptive distinction in two sets of penalties makes
STATEAGROINDUS.DEVE.CORP.LID.v.JAHANKHAN 717

it abundantly clear that the Corporation has treated the punishments/penalties A
falling in the first category as minor punishments/penalties and the acts of
misconduct, falling in the second category as major penalties. However, it
cannot be laid as a hard and fast rule that stoppage of increments, with or
without hedge over it, is always to be treated as a major penalty, necessitating
regular enquiry. It would depend on the Rules and Regulations governing the
service conditions of the employee, though ordinarily, in the absence of specific B
Regulations, withholding of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a
major penalty because it has a perpetual effect on the entire tenure of service
of the employee. (Para 8) (722-B, C, D, E)

2.2. In light of the interpretation made by this Court of the aforesaid
Regulations, t.he imposition of penalty vide composite order d.ated 19th C
December, 1989, directing recovery of loss of Rs.16903.41 and stoppage of
three increments with cumulative effect, is a major penalty, clearly envisaging
a regular enquiry before punishing the respondent. Since admittedly this
procedure was not followed, the High Court was justified in coming to the
conclusion that imposition of the impugned penalty without holding enquiry
was illegal and without jurisdiction. (Para 9) (722-F) D
3.1. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may
not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the
ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be
said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction
due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one E
of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative
remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial
review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of
principles of natural justice or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly F
without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these
circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar.
[Para 10) (722-H; 723-A, BJ

3.2. In the instant case, though it is true that the penalty order impugned
in the writ petition was appealable in terms of the aforenoted Regulations but G
having coming to the conclusion that the order was per se illegal being
violative of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be said that the High
Court fell into an error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent.
(Para 11) (723-D)

Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC l; H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·, [2007] 9 S.C.R

A Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors., (2003) 2
SCC 107; State of HP. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd, [2005) 6 SCC 499
and Sanjana M Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, {2005) 8 SCC
242, relied on. ·'\.

CIVIL APP ELLA TE. JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4041-4042 of
B 2001.
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.8.2003 of the High Court of Madhya
j •

Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur in M.P.-No. 83/1,990. ·rr .

Sudhir Kulshreshtha for the Appellants.
G _,. ·--·
Raviridra Shrivastava, Rajul Srivastava, Akash Srivastava and Arun
Kumar Beriwal for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D D.K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.

I. The M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporat~on (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Corporation') has preferred these appeals, questioning the
correctness of the two orders dated 4th August, 2003 and 19th January, f005
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
• "-·'
E Jabalpur, in a writ petition filed by one of its employee~· (the respo_~dent
herein), and the review application filed by the Corporation respectively. By
the former order, the High Court has set aside order dated 19th.December,
1989 passed by the Managing Director, in his capacity as the disciplinary
authority of the Corporation, imposing a penalty on the -respondent in the
F form of recovery of an amount equivalent to the monetary loss suffered by
the Corporation and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. By
the latter order, the High Court has dismissed the application for review filed
by the Corporation.

2. A few material facts, giving rise to the appeals, are as follows:
G While working as the Branch Manager of the Corporation at its Satna
Branch, the respondent entered into an agreement for letting ,out some
machinery belonging to the Corporation, to one M/s. Universal Construction
Company. It was alleged that the respondent failed to recover the rent/
charges under the said agreement and thereby caused loss to the Corporation.
H Consequently, a notice was issued to the respondent to show 'cause as to
STAIBAGROINDUS.DEVE.CORP.LTD.v.JAHANKHAN[D.K.JAIN,J.] 719

why the loss of Rs.16,903.41 caused to the Corporation due to dereliction of A
duty on account of non-recovery of the estimated amount of rent and the
interest be not recovered from him and a penalty of stoppage of three
increments with cumulative effect be not imposed. In his reply to the show
cause notice, the respondent, inter alia, stated that since he had been
transferred from the said Branch and his successor had not taken any steps
to recover rent etc. from the said Company, he was not responsible for the B
loss caused to the Corporation. The disciplinary authority, found the
explanation to be unsatisfactory. He observed that the respondent had let out
the machinery contrary to the instructions from the Headquarters as a result
whereof the Corporation had suffered financial loss of the aforesaid amount.
Accordingly, vide a composite order dated 19th December, 1989, he directed C
the recovery of Rs.16,903.41 from the salary of the respondent at 20% per
month and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect.

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent challenged the order by way of a
writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution mainly on the
ground that the penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative D
effect being a major penalty, it could not be imposed without holding a regular
departmental enquiry as per the procedure laid down for imposition of a major
penalty. The plea found favour with the High Court. The High Court was of
the view that as per the Rules/Regulations, the stoppage of three increments
with cumulative effect was a major penalty .and, therefore, could not be
imposed without holding a proper enquiry. Accordingly, the order passed by E
the disciplinary authority was quashed. Nevertheless, leave was granted to
the Corporation to proceed against the respondent, if so advised. Not being
satisfied with the order, the Corporation moved an application for review of
the said order but without any success. As noted above, both the said orders
are under challenge in these appeals. F
4. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that under M.P.
State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited Service (Recruitment
and Selection) Regulations of 1976 (for short 'the Regulations'), punishment
~

of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty and,
therefore, no regular enquiry is contemplated thereunder. It is contended that G
the High Court, lost sight of the relevant Regulations and going by the
general notions, without referring to any other statutory provision, has erred
in holding that the penalty imposed on the respondent was a major penalty.
Learned counsel has also urged that an efficacious alternative remedy by way
of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court should not H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS c20011 9 s.c.R.
A have entertained the writ petition.

s~ It is trite that the power of punishment to an employee is within the
discretion of the employer and ordinarily the courts do not interfere, unless
it is.found that either the enquiry, proceedings or punishment is vitiated
because of non-observance of the relevant Rules and Regulations or principles
B of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend etc. or that
the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an
employee. All these principles have been highlighted in Indian Oil Corporation
.Ltd & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Arora' and La/it Popli v. Canara Bank & Ors. 1·

6. Thus, the short question that arises for consideration is whether in
C the context of the Regulations ·governing the service conditions of the
respondent, the recovery of the aforementioned amount and stoppage of
three increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and if so, the order
of punishment is vitiated on any of the grounds noted above, warranting
interference by the Court?
D 7. The Regulatfons relevant for the purpose of the instant case are as
under:

"If the Managing Director is satisfied about.the· charges levied, he
shall grant a personal hearing to the employee concerned, and if
necessary, take oral examination of the witnesses named by the
E
employee in his reply before taking a final decision.

An appeal shall

(a) Against orders of the Managing Director to the·Chairman.
F (b) Against the order of the Chairman to the Board.
(c) An aggrieved employee shall have a right to appeal provided it
is preferred within 30 days of the receipt of the order against
which the appeal is preferred. The appellate authority (except
Board) shall decide the case within, 2 months from the date of
G the receipt of the appeal.

The following punishments may be awarded for good and sufficient
reasons, including breaches of any rules of conduct or for committing

1. (1997) J sec n
H 2. (2003) J sec ssJ
)
r
STATEAGROINDUS.DEVE. CORP.LTD. v. JAHANKHAN[D.K.JAIN,J.J 721

/ any of the offences mentioned in the Schedule according to gravity A
of each case:-
"Class of Punishment Appealable or
misconduct Non-appealable
Minor Lapses (a) Warning
and (b) Reprimand Non-appealable B
delinquencies (c) Fine upto Non-appealable
I/10th of pay ifthe amount is not
more than Rs. 5/-
(d) Recovery from
pay of whole or part Non-appealable
of pecuniary loss c
caused to the
corporation by
negligence or breach
of orders if within
Rs. 50/-
D
Acts of (a) Recovery Appealable
misconduct from pay of whole
or part of pecuniary
loss caused to the
corporation by E
negligence or breach
of orders if within
Rs.50/-
(b) withholding Appealable
increment for specific F
period
(c) stoppage of Appealable
promotion
(d) reduction to a lower Appealable
post or lower level pay
(e) termination of service Appealable
G
(f) removal Appealable
,;,( (g) discharge Appealable
(h) dismissal Appealable
(i) disqualifying Appealable"
the incumbent from H
i-\
.... . ~ t ...
7'2:2. . 'SUPREME COURT REPORTS' [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A any employment in the
Agro Ind. Corpn.
" .
8. A bare reading of the scheme of the afore-extracted Regul-;tlo~s
would show that there is a clear demarcation of quantum of punishrrl~~t
between the minor lapses, delinquencies and acts' of misconduct. It is-evldent
B that having regard to the nature of acts· of omission and commissio~~ the
punishment prescribed for minor lapses, and delinquencies, ostensibly. not
having perpetual effect, have been made non-appealable in comparison to the
punishments for acts of misconduct, which include recovery of whole or a
part of pecuniary loss, exceeding Rs.SO/-, caused to the Corporation,
withholding of increments for a specific period, termination of services, removal
C etc., which can all b_e characterized as major punishments. Precisely for: this
reason, all punishments falling in the latter category have been made
appealable. The perceptive distinction in two sets of penalties, in our view,
makes it abundantly clear that the Corporation has treated the punishments/
penalties falling in the first category as minor punishments/penalties and the
D acts of misconduct, falling in the second category as major penalties. We may,
however, hasten to add that it cannot be laid as a hard and fast rule that
stoppage of increments, with or without hedge over it, is always to be treated
as a major penalty, necessitating regular enquiry. It would depend on the
Rules and Regulations governing the service ·conditions of the employee,
though ordinarily, in the absence -of specific Regulations, withholding of
E increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty because it has
a perpetual effect on the entire tenure of service of the employee.

9. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that in the light of our
interpretation ~f the aforenoted Regulations, the imposition of penalty vide
F composite order dated 19th December, 1989, directing recovery of loss of
Rs.16903.41 and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, is a
major penalty, clearly envisaging a regular enquiry before punishing the
respondent. Since admittedly this procedure was not followed, the High Court
was justified in coming to the conc_Jusion that imposition of the impugned
penalty without holding enquiry was 111egal and without jurisdiction.
G
IO ..Before -parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission
of learned .counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal-being
available to ~he respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his
petition filed under Articles 226!227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying
that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under
H Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative
STf'.TEAGROINDUS. DEVE. CORP.LTD. v.JAHANKHAN[D.KJAIN,J.] 723

remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The A
rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative
remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate
case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three
contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any
of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural B
justice or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction
or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative
remedy does not operate as a bar. (See: Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar
of Trade Marks1, Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
& Ors. 4, State of HP. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd' and Sanjana M Wig C
v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ltd. 6 ).

11. In the instant case, though it is true that the penalty order impugned
in the writ petition was appealable in terms of the aforenoted Regulations but
having coming to the conclusion that the order was per se illegal being
violative of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be said that the High D
Court fell into an error in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are devoid of any merit and
consequently the same deserve to be dismissed, which we hereby do, leaving
the parties to bear their own costs.
E
B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.

3. (1998) s sec 1.
4. (2003) 2 sec 107.
5. (2005) 6 sec 499.
6. (2005) s sec 242.