Dear friends,
The elaborate reply given by Mr.K.K.Nair is highly appreciable for he has clearly distinguished the term 'cumulative effect' with reference to stoppage of increment as a measure of punishment with an illustrative example.I would like to add that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, apart from causing pecuniary loss to the incumbent for the specified period, will also stand as a bar to his promotion during its currency and affect his terminal benefits like gratuity, pension etc.,as well.In response to Mr.Badal Moharana's query, first I would say based on the ratio-decidendi of the ho'ble Supreme Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India[ 1993(I)LLJ887] that no employee has a right to promotion but only has a right to be considered for promotion according to rules and chances of promotion are not condition of service and as such claim, if any in this regard, is not maintainable. Mr.Badal has raised the question based on the principle of double jeopardy ie., a man cannot be punished twice for the same offence.Well, of course, rule of law cannot permit the application of the principle of double jeopardy.However, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no application in the issue of denial of promotion during currency of punishment[ State of TamilNadu v.K.S.Murugesan - 1996 III LLJ (Suppl)333 (SC) ].Unless the period of punishment got expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration could not be taken up.
The elaborate reply given by Mr.K.K.Nair is highly appreciable for he has clearly distinguished the term 'cumulative effect' with reference to stoppage of increment as a measure of punishment with an illustrative example.I would like to add that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, apart from causing pecuniary loss to the incumbent for the specified period, will also stand as a bar to his promotion during its currency and affect his terminal benefits like gratuity, pension etc.,as well.In response to Mr.Badal Moharana's query, first I would say based on the ratio-decidendi of the ho'ble Supreme Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India[ 1993(I)LLJ887] that no employee has a right to promotion but only has a right to be considered for promotion according to rules and chances of promotion are not condition of service and as such claim, if any in this regard, is not maintainable. Mr.Badal has raised the question based on the principle of double jeopardy ie., a man cannot be punished twice for the same offence.Well, of course, rule of law cannot permit the application of the principle of double jeopardy.However, the Supreme Court has categorically held that the doctrine of double jeopardy has no application in the issue of denial of promotion during currency of punishment[ State of TamilNadu v.K.S.Murugesan - 1996 III LLJ (Suppl)333 (SC) ].Unless the period of punishment got expired by efflux of time, the claim for consideration could not be taken up.