Disciplinary penalties cannot be combined when the service rule provides them as alternative punishments, requiring fresh reconsideration.

Where a service rule prescribes withholding of increments or debarment from promotion as separate penalties, the disciplinary authority cannot combine them into one punishment. The proposed composite penalty was held to exceed the scope of the rule and was therefore invalid. The matter was remitted to the competent executive authority to apply its own mind and pass fresh final orders in accordance with law, after which consequential reinstatement was to follow.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proposed disciplinary punishment combining stoppage of increments with debarment from promotion was valid in law; (ii) whether the matter had to be placed before the competent executive authority for fresh final orders and reinstatement.

Issue (i): whether the proposed disciplinary punishment combining stoppage of increments with debarment from promotion was valid in law.

Analysis: The relevant service rule provided for withholding of increments or promotion as separate penalties. The wording of the rule was treated as indicative that the authority could impose one of the two punishments, but not both together. The proposed penalty therefore travelled beyond the scope of the rule.

Conclusion: The proposed punishment was not in accordance with law and was invalid.

Issue (ii): whether the matter had to be placed before the competent executive authority for fresh final orders and reinstatement.

Analysis: Since the appointing authority had not taken the final decision, the matter was directed to be placed before the competent executive body. That body was required to apply its own mind and pass orders in accordance with law, keeping in view the illegality of awarding two punishments together. Consequential reinstatement was directed after the fresh decision.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted to the competent executive authority for fresh final orders, with reinstatement to follow thereafter.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part because the impugned disciplinary proposal was held unlawful, and the disciplinary matter was required to be reconsidered by the competent authority before consequential reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a service rule prescribes alternative penalties in the disjunctive, the disciplinary authority cannot combine them into a single punishment.

---