1996 INSC 0540
                                            State of Punjab and Others

                                                           Vs

                                               Surjit Singh Conductor

                                          Civil Appeal No. 7022 of 1996

                                      (K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Patianaik JJ)

                                                      22.03.1996

                                                        ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question is : whether the disciplinary authority could withhold payment of arrears of
salary for the period of suspension from 5-9-1986 to 2-4-1987, namely, the date of suspension till
the date of passing of the final orders ?

3. The respondent was a conductor. A charge-sheet was issued imputing misconduct in not issuing
the tickets. The Inquiry Officer, though had not recorded finding of proof of misconduct, the
disciplinary authority did not agree with the Inquiry Officer's report and has given reasons in
support of the disagreement, recorded a finding as to how the charges have been proved by giving
opportunity to the respondent to show why the punishment of stoppage of increments and also
withholding payments of arrears of salary as punishment. The respondent had submitted his
explanation. On consideration thereof, the disciplinary authority imposed stoppage of three annual
increments with cumulative effect and also withheld payment of arrears of salary for the suspension
period. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, it was reversed and the suit was decree. In SA
No. 208 of 1993 dated 25-11-1993, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the appellate
decree.

4. The appellate decree envisages confirmation of the stoppage of three increments with cumulative
effect but interfered with the order of withholding payment of arrears of salary as a measure of
punishment. The appellate court held that the disciplinary authority had no power to impose the said
punishment.

5. We have heard counsel on both sides. It is an admitted position that the charges have been proved.
Once the charges have been proved, it is settled law that the disciplinary authority is empowered to
impose appropriate punishment. The rule indicates withholding of payment of arrears of salary as
one of the modes of punishment. Under these circumstances, the disciplinary authority had rightly
exercised its power. The civil court had no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority. The civil court is not a court of appeal in civil suits.

6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed but, in the circumstances, without
costs.