- (1.) The special leave petition and the appeal by two Central-Government-servants - raise an interesting point of construction of a Service Rule whether a Disciplinary Authority can, under Sub-Rule (vi) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (Rules for short), impose the penalty of reduction on a Government Servant, recruited directly to a particular post, to a post lower than that to which he was so recruited; and if such a reduction is permissible, whether the reduction could only be to a post from which under the relevant Recruitment Rules promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited. The petition and appeal are directed against the orders dated 8/9-4-1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the order dated 29-10-1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat, respectively, affirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authorities imposing on the petitioner and the appellant the penalty of reduction in rank to post lower than the one to which both of them were initially recruited. There is a divergence of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts on the point : The Division Benches of the Orissa and Karnataka High Courts have held that such a reduction in rank is not possible at all. (See Babaji Charan Rout v. State of Orissa, (1982) 1 Serv LJ 496 : (1982 Lab IC 603); Shivalingaswamy v. State of Karnataka, ILR (1985) Kant 1453). However, the Madras, Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts have held that there is no limitation on the power to impose such a penalty. (See Gopal Rao v. CIT, (1976) 2 Mad LJ 508, Mahendra Kumar v. Union of India (1984) 1 Serv LJ 34 : (1984 Lab IC 1478), S. N. Dey v. Union of India, (1983) 2 Serv LJ 114 (All)). The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in C. S. Balakumar v. The Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1987) 1 Serv LJ 18 has also subscribed to this view. There is yet a third view, as typified in P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, (1979) 3 Serv LIZ 1509: (1979 Lab IC NOC 122) (Kant) and the one taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case from which the Special Leave Petition arises, that such a reduction in rank is permissible provided that promotion from the post to which the Government servant is reduced to the post from which he was so reduced is permissible, or, as it has been put, the post to which the Government servant is reduced is "in the line of promotion" and is a "feeder-service". Special leave is granted in SLP (C) 9509 of 1986. Both the cases are taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) A brief advertence to the facts of the cases is necessary : SLP (C) 9506 of 1986 is by a certain Nyadar Singh, the unsuccessful petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, and is directed against that Tribunal's order No. T-564/85 (SBCWP No. 1747/80) dated 28th February, 1986, rejecting his challenge to the order dated 4th Sept. 1976, of the disciplinary, authority imposing a penalty of 'reduction in rank' reducing the petitioner from the post of Assistant Locust Warning Officer to which he was recruited directly on 31-10-1960 and confirmed on 27-12-1971 to that of Junior Technical Assistant pursuant to certain disciplinary proceedings held against him. In 1974, he was working as an Assistant Locust Warning Officer at Nohar. On 4-11-1975 in respect of certain acts alleged to constitute misconduct on his part certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in the order dated 4-9-1976 imposing the aforesaid penalty. The statutory appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed on 24-4-1979. Thereafter he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which, after the coming into force of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, stood transferred to and was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by its order dated 28-2-1986, now under appeal. It is relevant to mention that in the year 1981, after the period of penalty of five years had spent itself out, the appellant was re-promoted to the post of Assistant Locust Warning Officer.
(3.) Civil Appeal No. 889 of 1988 is by M. J. Ninama, an Upper Division Clerk in the Post and Telegraph Circle Office, Ahmedabad, preferred against the order No. OA 103 of 1986 dated 29-10-1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, rejecting appellant's challenge to the legality and correctness of the order dated 15-5-1988 of the Post Master General who in modification of the earlier orders imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement on him, substituted in its place the order imposing the penalty of 'reduction in rank' to the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to the findings recorded against the appellant on the charge of accepting illegal gratification. Appellant had been directly recruited as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Post Master General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad. He was reduced to the lower post of Lower Division Clerk until he was found fit after a period of five years from 15-5-1986. However, the appellant's seniority on re-promotion was directed to be fixed at what it would have been, without the reduction.;