9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Appeal against reversion from Auditors to Lower Division Clerks, validity of disciplinary proceedings, authority to initiate departmental proceedings, reduction in rank, reversion to lower posts, applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution.
Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings: The appellants challenged the validity of their reversion from Auditors to Lower Division Clerks based on disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Senior Deputy Accountant General instead of the Accountant General, who was the appointing authority. The argument was made that this violated Article 311 of the Constitution, depriving them of guaranteed rights for civil post holders under the State. Authority to Initiate Departmental Proceedings: The judgment clarified that while Article 311(1) ensures dismissal or removal by the appointing authority, it does not mandate that departmental proceedings must be initiated only by the appointing authority. Rules can prescribe initiation by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority, providing additional safeguards. In the absence of such rules, any superior authority can initiate proceedings. Reduction in Rank and Reversion: The Court discussed the concept of "reduction in rank" under Article 311(2), emphasizing that it refers to reversion from a higher post to a lower post, either due to exigencies or as a punishment. It was highlighted that reversion must have a nexus with the post held by the officer, and reversion to a post never held is not permissible. Judicial Precedents and Anomalies: Citing previous cases, the judgment emphasized the need for disciplinary actions to align with the officer's cadre and qualifications. Anomalous situations, such as reversion to posts never held, were deemed unreasonable. The Court upheld the view that disciplinary authorities should not have powers leading to such anomalies. Decision and Outcome: The Court allowed the appeal regarding the reversion of two appellants appointed as Upper Division Clerks to Lower Division Clerks, quashing the orders of reduction in rank. However, no monetary compensation was granted for the period spent in the lower posts. The appeal of the third appellant, initially a Lower Division Clerk reverted to that post from Auditor, was dismissed as the reversion was deemed appropriate punishment without merit for appeal.
|
