- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by S.D. Singh, who was employed as a peon cum watch man in the United Bank of India, Sadat Branch, Ghazipur. By virtue of his appointment aforesaid, he was a member sub-staff. He was promoted thereafter as a clerk. In 1980 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for permitting an officer to enter into the cash department of the Bank without prior permission of the superior officer. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and charge was found established. Consequent upon the charge being established, one increment for two years was withheld. He preferred a departmental appeal but failed. Thereafter proceedings for reversion of the petitioner were started on account of the punishment of stoppage of the increment. The petitioner was reverted from the post of clerk to that of a peon.
(2.) Sri K.P.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the rule relating to reversion of a clerk grade to the post of peon did not apply and consequently the petitioner could not be reverted. Rule relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is quoted below : "2.1(c): Persons against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will not be debarred from higher appointment in the same cadre or from promotion to a higher cadre but in their case the higher appointment/promotion will be effected on ad hoc basis which will continue till such time as the disciplinary proceedings are completed. On completion of disciplinary proceedings, if punishment is imposed for proved gross misconduct, and even after the appeal, if any, the employee is not absolved from the charge of misconduct, he will be reverted to the post held by him prior to such ad hoc higher appointment/ promotion. In such a case the employee concerned will not be eligible for any higher appointment or promotion to which he is otherwise eligible for a period of two years from date of imposition/confirmation of punishment. If no punishment is imposed, the higher appointment/promotion will be regularised with retrospective effect taking the period of such adhoc arrangement into account as a part of his probationary period."
(3.) We have already mentioned the interpretation of the same. The counsel next urged that even if the petitioner was guilty of some misconduct, he should not be debarred for being considered for promotion after certain period. The period, according to the petitioner's counsel, is contained at Page 43 of the writ petition, which is two years, this clause of the statement is reproduced: "In such a case the employee concerned will not be eligible for any higher appointment or promotion to which he is otherwise eligible for a period of 2 years from the date of imposition/confirmation of the punishment. If no punishment is imposed, the higher appointment(S)/promotion will be regularised with retrospective effect taking the period of such adhoc arrangement into account as part of his probationary period.";