Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The appellant was employed as a Field Officer. This post was on the development site of the Life Insurance Corporation. The Corporation served a charge-sheet on the appellant somewhere here in May, 1958 and after enquiry he was reduced to a lower scale of pay in the same post. Subsequently in May 1959 further charges were served Ripon the appellant. After a preliminary enquiry formal notice to show cause against the punishment of dismissal to was served on the appellant on 8th January, 1960. The appellant submitted a explanation whereupon on 16th March, 1960 the Zonal Manager passed an order posting the appellant as an Assistant on the Administrative side with a reduced salary. This punishment was inflicted in lieu of the proposed punishment of dismissal. n the letter dated 16th March, 1960 the Zonal Manager stated that the appellant's basic Salary will he Rs. 210/- while his dearness allowance will be Rs. 70/-. Subsequently the Zonal Manager served on the petitioner another notice dated 19/23rd August, 1960 stating that he had been informed by the Central Office that consequent upon the absorption of the appellant from Development to Administrative side as an Assistant the salary of the appellant could be fixed as under:- JUDGEMENT_69_LAWS(ALL)9_1972.html This refixation was made effective from the 17th of March, 1960 when the appellant joined the post of the Assistant.
(2.) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal but the appeal was rejected. Thereafter the appellant instituted a writ petition which also failed.
(3.) The case of the appellant is that by the letter dated 16th March, 1960 the Zonal manager had inflicted upon the appellant the punishment of reduction in rank accompanied by the transfer from the Development to the Administrative side. As a result of this punishment the Zonal Manager fixed the basic pay of the appellant at Rs. 210/- and dearness allowance at Rs. 70/-. By the aforesaid letter the appellant was required to confirm his acceptance. The appellant gave his consent and on the vary next day he joined the new post on the term; and conditions offered by the Zonal Manager. Thereafter the Zonal Manager had no jurisdiction to very the pay of the appellant.;