Appellate Authority Can't Enhance Punishment In Employee's Own Appeal Without Following Due Procedure: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an appellate authority under the disciplinary rules of an organisation cannot enhance the punishment in an appeal filed by the delinquent in his/her own interest. The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority that enhanced the punishment of...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an appellate authority under the disciplinary rules of an organisation cannot enhance the punishment in an appeal filed by the delinquent in his/her own interest.
The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority that enhanced the punishment of the petitioner in an appeal filed by him against the first order.
The petitioner was a Junior Engineer with the JVVNL, when it was alleged that he did not deposit certain burnt transformers as well as the oil collected from them to the Assistant Engineer's office within the prescribed timeline.
An explanation was submitted by the petitioner to the disciplinary authority who was not satisfied with the same, and imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment. When this order was challenged by the petitioner, while upholding the order, the appellate authority enhanced the penalty to stoppage of 2 annual grade increments.
Hence, the petition was filed challenging the order of the disciplinary authority, as well as the appellate authority.
In relation to the contention against the order of the appellate authority, it was argued by the petitioner that the appellate authority could not go beyond the relief sought by the petitioner and pass an order that was detrimental to the petitioner's grievance by enhancing the punishment.
On the contrary, the state argued that the appellate authority had the power to enhance the punishment. Reference was made to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962, that permitted appellate authority to initiate suo moto proceedings for enhancement of punishment.
After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the order of the appellate authority.
“The appellate powers are exercisable upon the appeal filed by aggrieved party…Since the provision as referred above enables the appellate authority to enhance the punishment, it does not mean that the appellate authority can enhance the punishment in the appeal filed by the delinquent against his own interest.”
In relation to Regulation 16 as referred to by the State, the Court observed that to be able to exercise power under this, the court first had to take suo moto cognizance. It was highlighted that in the present matter, there was no record to show that such cognizance was taken by the appellate authority before passing order for enhancing the punishment.
Hence, it was held that the entire exercise was done in violation of the Regulation, and thus the order for enhancement was held to be unsustainable.
Regarding the challenge to the order of the disciplinary authority, no fault was found by the Court.
Accordingly, while upholding everything else, merely the order of the appellate authority to the extent of enhancing the punishment was set aside.
Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 159