At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
For the Appellants: Sunil Kumar Jain, Abhishek Jain, Anusha Agarwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: V.K. Shukla, Sr.Advocate, Abhishek Krishna, Karri Venkata Reddy, Arvind S. Avhad, Advocates.
Navin Sinha, J.
2. Abatement is set aside. On the oral prayer, delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned. The application for substitution is allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.1-Chandra Bhan Singh are brought on record.
3. The appellant-Bank assails the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2017 of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the Order of the Single Judge dated 22.09.2017.
4. The first respondent (since deceased) was placed under suspension on charges of financial and other irregularities. After conducting departmental inquiry, the Appointing Authority dismissed the first respondent on 09.06.1997. Upon challenge to the order of dismissal dated 09.06.1997 by the first respondent before the High Court in C.M.W.P.NO.23033 of 1997, the High Court opined that the punishment was disproportionate and remanded the matter for reconsideration with regard to the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the first respondent. Thereafter, the appellant-Bank cancelled the order of dismissal of the first respondent, but however imposed penalty of stoppage of five increments besides censure entry. On appeal by the first respondent, it was modified by the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, and instead of five increments only one increment was withheld along with censure. The first respondent has since superannuated and has been deceased. The matter is pursued by his legal representatives.
5. We have heard Mr. Sunil K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and also perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
6. The punishment meted out to the first respondent has not been effaced. It is only the quantum of punishment which has been reduced. Reduction of punishment is completely different from exoneration of the charge. So long as the punishment remains the question of full payment of salary for the period of suspension or salary for the period from dismissal till reinstatement does not arise. The
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
principle of "no work no pay" shall also apply. 7. In view of above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is held to be unsustainable. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.