Dear Sir(s),
Greetings. In a joint disciplinary action, a stoppage of three increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded. One of the delinquents of the disciplinary action filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati, and the Hon'ble court ordered the removal of the cumulative effect, which was duly executed. Subsequently, the individual has appealed to the Head of Department (HOD), arguing that there is no provision in Rule 72 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, to impose the punishment of a stoppage of three increments for three years and requested a modification of the order.
I am facing difficulty in locating the specific order regarding the quantum of punishment, i.e., whether the stoppage should be for one increment for one year, one increment for two or three years, or a stoppage of three increments for three years, as it is not clearly outlined in any of the reference books or in the CRPF Act & Rules.
I would greatly appreciate it if my issue, as outlined above, could be resolved in accordance with the relevant rules, regulations, policies, or clarifications.
Thanks and regards,
K Kripanand.
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Greetings. In a joint disciplinary action, a stoppage of three increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded. One of the delinquents of the disciplinary action filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Guwahati, and the Hon'ble court ordered the removal of the cumulative effect, which was duly executed. Subsequently, the individual has appealed to the Head of Department (HOD), arguing that there is no provision in Rule 72 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, to impose the punishment of a stoppage of three increments for three years and requested a modification of the order.
I am facing difficulty in locating the specific order regarding the quantum of punishment, i.e., whether the stoppage should be for one increment for one year, one increment for two or three years, or a stoppage of three increments for three years, as it is not clearly outlined in any of the reference books or in the CRPF Act & Rules.
I would greatly appreciate it if my issue, as outlined above, could be resolved in accordance with the relevant rules, regulations, policies, or clarifications.
Thanks and regards,
K Kripanand.
From India, Bhilai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Understanding the Punishment of Stoppage of Increment
The punishment provided in the CRPF Rules is 'Stoppage of Increment'. 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 the increment (the next one) that is withheld, though it practically means a loss of three increments in a three-year period. The second increment can be drawn only after the first increment is drawn, and so on and so forth.
Effect of High Court Orders on Punishment
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 the punishment is that the employee loses one increment value for three years, two increment values for two years, and one increment value for one year.
I do not think there is anything wrong with your punishment order, and this is the standard terminology used in such a punishment in government organizations.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
1593The punishment provided in the CRPF Rules is 'Stoppage of Increment'. 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 the increment (the next one) that is withheld, though it practically means a loss of three increments in a three-year period. The second increment can be drawn only after the first increment is drawn, and so on and so forth.
Effect of High Court Orders on Punishment
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 the punishment is that the employee loses one increment value for three years, two increment values for two years, and one increment value for one year.
I do not think there is anything wrong with your punishment order, and this is the standard terminology used in such a punishment in government organizations.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
THE KERALA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION RULES, 2011.pdf
Forms & Registers Andhra Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act 1988 & Rules 1990.xls