Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Delay in Punishment Change Leads to Reinstatement of Supervisor

Updated
Jan 6, 2026 7:12 PM
supreme-court-delay-in-punishment-change-leads-to-reinstatement-of-supervisor

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India turned down an appeal by the State about a delay in changing and increasing a punishment. This case involved the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW1) Department and a person named P. Perumal.

The Original Punishment and Delay

Back in 2012, P. Perumal, a Supervisor, was formally accused of wrongdoing, leading to disciplinary actions. By 2017, it was decided to punish him by stopping his pay raise for two years, but this wouldn't affect future raises. It took four years to decide on this punishment after the investigation report in 2013. P. Perumal accepted this and did not object to it.

"The punishment of stopping the pay raise for two years, without affecting future raises, was finalized and completed."

Attempt to Increase Punishment

In February 2020, a notice was sent to P. Perumal asking why his punishment should not be changed to firing him from his job. P. Perumal replied in March 2020, asking them not to do this. Despite this, he was fired in January 2021.

Retirement and Pandemic Complications

P. Perumal was supposed to retire in May 2020. However, because of the pandemic, he and others were allowed to continue working. The State argued this meant they could still take disciplinary actions.

"The lawyer explained that because the pandemic was happening all over the country, the respondent and other workers were kept on..."

Legal Arguments and Court's Decision

The State referred to a rule that allows changes without a time limit. However, the Court noted a six-month time limit for such changes. The plan to change the punishment in December 2018 did not meet this deadline, and the delay was not justified by the pandemic.

"The rule that changes must be made within 6 months was also broken."

The Court found the State's actions unfair and unreasonable, especially since P. Perumal had already completed his original punishment. The decision, given by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, restored P. Perumal with all job and retirement benefits.

Verdict Summary

On December 11, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the State's appeal, stressing the need to follow rules and be fair in job-related actions. This case shows how delays and mistakes in following rules can weaken disciplinary actions and public trust.

Tags:
Employment Law
Delay in Decision
Public Interest