The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent Municipality. By the impugned order dated 03.04.1998, he was imposed with the punishment of reduction in the lower post of Record Clerk from the post of Junior Assistant. It was stated by the 2nd respondent that the charges levelled against the petitioner were completely proved and even on the prior occasions, he has been warned. Though the petitioner could have been removed from service, considering the family circumstances and also on humanitarian consideration, he was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Record Clerk.
2. The petitioner challenges the said reduction in rank by way of O.A.No.3107 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an order dated 21.04.1998, granted interim stay of the impugned order, which came to be extended until further orders and the said order enured to his benefit till date.
3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.35239 of 2006.
4. The only contention raised by the petitioner was that even though the punishment could have been imposed on him, the said punishment has to be in tune with the relevant service rules. Reduction in rank can be imposed as punishment only if the petitioner had come by way of promotion from the lower post. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant directly in the year 1987.
5. On notice, the 2nd respondent has filed a reply affidavit. Instead of answering the grounds raised by the petitioner the 2nd respondent has stated in paragraph 6 that reversion was only a minor penalty and therefore there is justification for imposing the penalty. The respondents have not understood that under the relevant service rules, reduction in rank is a major punishment.
6. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V.Srinivasa Sastry and others vs. Comptroller and Auditor General and others reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1321. The following passage found in paragraphs 8 and 9 may be usefully extracted below.
"8. The expression "reduction in rank" in
Art.311(2) has an obvious reference to different grades in service. Whenever there is a reduction in rank it implies reversion from a higher posts to a lower post. Reversion from a higher post to a lower post may be under exigencies of situation or by way of punishment. The expression "reduction in rank" occurring in
Art.311(2) covers only such reversions which are by way of punishment. The expression "reduction in rank", within the meaning of
Art.311(2) as the expression itself suggests, means reduction from a higher to a lower rank or post. But whether in this process an officer can be reduced from a higher rank or a post to a rank to which he never belonged and to a post which he never held? If the power to reduce an officer by way of punishment to a rank which was never held by such officer is conceded, then a person directly appointed as Upper Division Clerk cannot only be reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk, but even to the post of a Peon; an Engineer to the post of a Fitter, a Headmaster of a School to the post of an Accountant or Clerk in the said school. As such even while imposing the punishment of reduction in rank, the order must have nexus with the post held by the delinquent officer concerned, from which he had been promoted to the post from which he is being reverted. If such an officer had not held that post or was not member of that cadre then he cannot be reverted to a lower cadre to which he did not belong or to a lower rank which he did not hold at any stage.
9. This Court in the case of Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1979, in connection with R.11(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 said (at p.1986):-
"The argument that the rule enables a reduction in rank to a post lower than the one to which the civil servant was initially recruited for a specified period and also enables restoration of the Government Servant to the original post, with the restoration of seniority as well, and that, therefore, there is nothing anomalous about the matter, does not, in our opinion, wholly answer the problem. It is at best one of the criteria supporting a plausible view of the matter. The rule also enables an order without the stipulation of such restoration. The other implications of the effect of the reduction as a fresh induction into a lower grade, service or post not at any time earlier held by the Government servant remain unanswered. Then again, there is an inherent grade or class of post being asked to work in a lower grade which in certain conceivable cases might require different qualifications..............................................But, an overall view of the balance of the relevant criteria indicates that it is reasonable to assume that the rule making authority did not intend to clothe the disciplinary authority with the power which would produce such anomalous and unreasonable situations. The contrary view taken by the High Courts in the several decisions referred to earlier cannot be taken to have laid down the principle correctly".
We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view".
7. In the light of the same, the impugned order stands set aside so far as it reduces the rank of the petitioner from Junior Assistant to that of Record Clerk. The matter does not end here. It is open to the respondents to pass appropriate punishment order in accordance with Service rules after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there will be no order as to costs.