STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusSURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR

        \
        I




                                  STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.                                  A
    1                                         v.
                                  SURJIT SINGH CONDUCTOR

                                           MARCH 22, 1996

                       [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                               B

                  Service Law :
                                           . .                           ...
                   Discipli1.wry authority-Power to withhold a"ears of salary for the
            period of suspe11sion:-lJiscipli11ary proceedings-Suspension of delinquent
            pending inquiiy-Charges proved-Punishment-Stoppage of three annual              c
            increments with cumulative effect and withholding payment of a"ears of
            salary for the period· under suspensio1t-Civi/ Cowt inteifering with order
            withholding payment of a1Tears of salary-Held, _the 1Ules indicate withholding
            of payment of an-ears of salary as one of the modes of punishment-Discipli-
            nary authority rightly exercised its power-Civil Court has no jurisdiction to .D
            substitute the punislunent intposed by disciplinary authority-Civil Court is
            not a cowt of appeal in civil suits.
,   •           • CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7022 of
            1996.
                                   •                                                        E
                . From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.93 of the Punjab and
            Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No ..208 of 1993.

                  Manoj Swarup and Girish Chandra for th"e Appellants.
                                       '             ~   - 1               •



                  N.N. Jauhri and S.K. ·Sabharwal for the Respondents.                      F

                                                 .
                  The following Order. of the Court was delivered :

                  Leave granted.

                 · The only question is : whether the disciplinary authority could with-·   G
            hold 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 f!rders ?

                 The respondent was a conductor. A charge-sheet was issued imput-
            ing misconduct in not issuing the tickets. The Enquiry Officer, though had      H
                                                817
    818                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 ex-
B   planation. 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 &
C   Haryana confirmed the appellate decree.

          The appellate decree envisages confirmation of the stoppage of three
    increments with cumulative effect but interfered with the order with-hold-
    ing 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
D   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 ap-
E   propriate punishment. The rule indicates with-holding of payment of ar-
    rears of salary as one of the modes of punishment. Under these
    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.
F
          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed but, in
    the circumstances, without costs.

    R.P.                                                       Appeal allowed.