9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Disciplinary Authority can impose the penalty of reduction in rank to a post lower than the one to which a Government servant was initially recruited. 2. If such a reduction is permissible, whether it could only be to a post from which promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited is possible. Summary: Issue 1: Permissibility of Reduction in Rank to a Lower Post The Supreme Court examined whether a Disciplinary Authority can impose the penalty of reduction in rank to a post lower than the one to which a Government servant was initially recruited. The appellants argued that such a reduction is not permissible based on a proper construction of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. They relied on the decision in *Hussain Sasan Sahed Kaldgi v. State of Maharashtra*, [1987] AIR SC 1627. The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, contended that reduction in rank has a wider import than reversion and should not be limited by the same constraints. The Court noted a divergence of judicial opinion among various High Courts on this issue. Issue 2: Reduction to a Post in the Line of Promotion The Court also considered whether the reduction could only be to a post from which promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited is permissible. The Tribunal in the first appeal held that Rule 11 (vi) permits reduction in rank if the post to which the Government servant is reduced is in the line of promotion, i.e., a feeder service. The Court examined various judicial opinions, including those from the Orissa and Karnataka High Courts, which held such reductions impermissible, and those from the Madras, Andhra Pradesh, and Allahabad High Courts, which held no such limitation exists. Judgment: The Supreme Court concluded that the statutory language of Rule 11 does not, by itself, impose any limitations on the power to reduce a Government servant to a lower post. However, interpretative factors relevant to the provision do impart such limitations. The Court held that the penalty of reduction in rank should not extend to a post that the Government servant never held before, as it would affect the policy of recruitment and could lead to unreasonable and anomalous situations. The Court set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants and directed that the period of service in the reduced post be treated as service in the post held prior to the imposition of the penalty, without entitlement to any difference in salary for the period of reduction. Orders: 1. Nyadar Singh: The penalty imposed on him is set aside. The period of service in the reduced post is to be treated as service in the original post, without entitlement to any difference in salary. The proceedings against him are concluded without remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. 2. M.J. Ninama: The penalty of reduction in rank is set aside. He is to be restored to the post held before the imposition of the penalty, without entitlement to the difference in salary for the period served in the lower post. The case is not remitted for fresh consideration of the penalty due to the lapse of time. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no costs.
|
