GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 11. 11. 92 Annex. 6 by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of LDC to the post of Class IV employee in Department enquiry held u/rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Con- trol & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) be quashed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances : (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840 for a period of 3 months till selected candidates are available through Rajasthan Public Service Commission from Scheduled Caste quota and he was given appointment vide order dated 19. 3. 1983 (Annex. 1) passed by the District Collector, Barmer-respondent No. 3 and in compliance of that order, the petitioner joined his duties on 21. 3. 83 in the office of Tehsildar, Shiwani, Dist. Barmer as LDC. (ii) The petitioner was served with a memorandum No. 4392 dated 24. 8. 91 along with charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and the same is Annex. 3. Thereafter Shri B. L. Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Balotra was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 13. 11. 91. (iii) The charge was levelled against the petitioner regarding carelessness in his work and by doing so he did loss in the Government revenue by making the registration at lower rates than the prescribed rates by the Government while he was working as registration Clerk in Tehsildar's Officer, Pachpadra. (iv) The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 24. 8. 91 on 26. 8. 91 and the same is Annex. 4. (v) After conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 14. 2. 92 and same is Annex. 5 is which it was stated that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority i. e. respondent No. 3. The Dist. collector, Barmer vide his impugned order No. 506 dated 12. 10. 92 (Annex. 6) punished the petitioner and reverted the from the post of Lower Division Clerk to the post of Class IV and posted him in the office of Tehsildar, Chohtan. The simple case of the petitioner is that imposition of penalty of reversion from the post of LDC to the post of Class IV employee is illegal and without jurisdiction and unconstitutional as reduction in rank of the Government servant initially recruited to a higher time scale grade service or post to a lower time scale grade, service or post virtually amounts to his removal from the higher post and the substitution of his recruitment to such lower post affecting the policy of recruitment itself. Hence, punishment imposed vide order dated 12. 10. 92 (Annex. 6) is ab initio void and should be quashed. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Nyadar Singh vs. M. J. Ninaama (1 ). To this writ petition, the respondents filed a reply on 26. 12. 94 in which it was averred by them that under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958, the Disciplinary authority is authorised to pass demotion order as has been issued in the present case and therefore, the impugned order Annex. 6 dated 12. 10. 92 is sustainable in the eye of law and should not be quashed and hence this writ petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed. It has been further averred by the respondents that the case of Nyadar Singh (Supra) has no relevancy in the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Clause IV of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1958, which reads as under : " 14. Nature of Penalties : The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided be imposed on a Government Servant, namely :- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . (iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules :" I have Heard both the parties and perused the record.
(3.) THERE is no dispute in this case that the petitioner was initially appointed as LDC and there is also no dispute on the point that after completion of the Department Enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, the petitioner was punished and his punishment was that he was made Class IV employee from the post of LDC. The question for determination is whether a person initially recruited to higher time scale, grade or service or post can be reduced by way of punishment to a post which he never held. I have considered the rival contentions raised at the Bar and in my considered opinion, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner should prevail and the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondents should be straightway rejected as above question has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra ). In that judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the rival decisions of the different High Courts and found that 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. For that reliance can be placed on following two decisions: (i) Babaji Charan Rout vs. State of Orissa (2) (ii) Shivalingaswamy vs. State of Karanataka (3) ;