Sir(s),
Greetings. In a joint DE stoppage of three increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded and one of the delinquent of the DE filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati and the Hon'ble court has also ordered to remove the CUMULATIVE EFFECT. The same was done. Now, the individual has preferred an appeal to HOD with the prayers that there is no provision in Rule 72 of CRPF Rules, 1955 to award punishment of stoppage of three increment for three years and requested to modify the order.
In this context, I am not getting the specific order regarding awarding of QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT i.e., stoppage of one increment for one year, one increment for two years/three years, stoppage of three increment for three years is not forthcoming in any of the reference books or in CRPF Act & Rules.
I will be grateful, if my problem projected above is solved with the rules/regulations/policy or clarifications concerned.
Thanks & regards,
K Kripanand.
From India, Bhilai
Greetings. In a joint DE stoppage of three increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded and one of the delinquent of the DE filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati and the Hon'ble court has also ordered to remove the CUMULATIVE EFFECT. The same was done. Now, the individual has preferred an appeal to HOD with the prayers that there is no provision in Rule 72 of CRPF Rules, 1955 to award punishment of stoppage of three increment for three years and requested to modify the order.
In this context, I am not getting the specific order regarding awarding of QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT i.e., stoppage of one increment for one year, one increment for two years/three years, stoppage of three increment for three years is not forthcoming in any of the reference books or in CRPF Act & Rules.
I will be grateful, if my problem projected above is solved with the rules/regulations/policy or clarifications concerned.
Thanks & regards,
K Kripanand.
From India, Bhilai
The punishment provided in the CRPF Rules is 'Stoppage of Increment'. So the wording stoppage of the next increment for three years means that no increment will be drawn for the next three years. It is only increment (the next one) that is withheld though it practically means loss of three increments in three year period. The second increment can be drawn only after the first increment is drawn and so on and so forth.
Since the cumulative effect part of the punishment has been modified as per the orders of the High Court, the employee after the punishment period is over is getting restored to the position where he would have been had he not been punished. So the real effect of punishment is that employee looses one increment value for three years, two increment value for two years and one increment value for one year.
I do not think there is anything wrong in your punishment order and this is the standard terminology used in such a punishment in government organisations.
From India, Mumbai
1422Since the cumulative effect part of the punishment has been modified as per the orders of the High Court, the employee after the punishment period is over is getting restored to the position where he would have been had he not been punished. So the real effect of punishment is that employee looses one increment value for three years, two increment value for two years and one increment value for one year.
I do not think there is anything wrong in your punishment order and this is the standard terminology used in such a punishment in government organisations.
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Standing Orders Lilly Fashion.doc