Where the decision of the Disciplinary Committee is not perverse, the Court would not change their decision in appeal

The Supreme Court in the case of Om Pal Singh vs Disciplinary Authority & Ors. (Civil Appeal no. 176 of 2020) decided on 14.01.2020 held that whenever the Court direct reinstatement, they should apply their mind to the facts and the to decide whether continuity of service or consequential benefits should be granted and not be a matter of right.

Facts :
The appellant was working as an officer in Bank, where he was served with a charge-sheet.
The appellant vide order dated 29.07.2003 got suspended, wherein he filed a writ challenging the order. The court disposed the petition and directed bank to complete inquiry within four months. Thereafter by order dated 05.07.2004, the appellant was dismissed from the services without any benefits under staff services regulations.
The appellant filed a writ petition against the order, wherein a sub-committee was constituted by the Board of Directors and it was held that the charges of misconduct against the Appellant did not warrant the penalty of dismissal from service. The Committee reduced the penalty from dismissal to reduction of 15 stages in payment, lower in time scale of pay for a period of eight years with a further direction that the Appellant shall not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the recommendation was ordered on 10.09.2012 by the Board of Directors. The Appellant retired in the year 2012.
The appellant again filed the writ challenging the order by the committee, wherein the order was modified by the disciplinary committee to 10 stages (increments) lower in time scale of pay for a period of six years with further direction that the officer shall not earn the increments of pay during the period of said reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction shall have the effect of postponing the future increments on his pay.
The High Court was of the opinion that charges framed against the appellant were fully proved and imposition of penalty was commensurate with the delinquency of the Appellant as the penalty imposed on the Appellant was not shockingly disproportionate.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Hon’ble Court, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Issue
Whether the Appellant is entitled to payment of salary and consequential benefits for the period of suspension or not?
Ratio:
The Court stated that that the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the charges against the Appellant were proved and have not been disturbed. Reduction of the penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in time scale of pay does not result in exoneration of the Appellant of the charges framed against him. However, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to take a decision as to how the period of suspension shall be treated. While passing the impugned order dated 29.10.2015, the Disciplinary Authority held that the Appellant shall not be entitled for any payment from 06.07.2004 to 29.08.2012.
The Court further relied upon the judgment of the same bench “J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs K.P. Agarwal & Anr”, where the court held that granting consequential benefits to a person who has not worked for 10-15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever the Court direct reinstatement, they should apply their mind to the facts and circumstance to decide whether continuity of service or consequential benefits should be directed