Nyadar Singh: M. J. Ninama vs Union Of India: Post Master General, Gujarat, Ahmedabad

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(SC) 525

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Nyadar Singh, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 3003 of 1988, (Arising out of Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 9509 of 1986) and Civil Appeal No. 889 of 1988, D/- 23-8-1988.
AND
M.J. Ninama, Appellant
Versus
The Post Master General, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Respondent.

Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, C.V.SUBBA RAO, HEMANT SHARMA, J.S.Bali, K.M.NAYAR, Kuldip Singh, L.R.SINGH

Headnote:
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 11 – Special leave petition and the appeal by two Central-Government-servants - raise an interesting point of construction of a Service Rule whether a Disciplinary Authority can, under Sub-Rule (vi) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, impose the penalty of reduction on a Government Servant, recruited directly to a particular post, to a post lower than that to which he was so recruited; and if such a reduction is permissible, whether the reduction could only be to a post from which under the relevant Recruitment Rules promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited – Petition and appeal are directed against the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat, respectively, affirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authorities imposing on the petitioner and the appellant the penalty of reduction in rank to post lower than the one to which both of them were initially recruited –Held, Point now is as to what orders are to be made in these appeals – Appellants in the two appeals have been reduced to posts lower than these to which they were initially directly recruited – As these penalties cannot be sustained in the view we take of the rule, in the normal course the penalties imposed would require to be set aside and the disciplinary authority directed to reconsider which other penalty which it would now choose to impose – But, court are of the opinion that it would be somewhat unfair that at this distance of time the matters are re-opened – Court think, having regard to all the circumstances of the cases the orders that commend themselves appropriate in the two cases are in terms following – In the first of the appeals, appellant-Nyadar Singh, has, after the period of the reduction in rank has spent itself out, been restored to the original position – It would, therefore, be sufficient to set aside the penalty imposed on him and direct that the period of service in the reduced post be treated as service in the post held by him prior to imposition of the penalty, subject to the condition, however, that the appellant shall not be entitled to any difference of salary for and during the period of reduction – In view of this, we think that the proceedings taken against him should come to an end and there is no need to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for selection and imposition of a fresh penalty – Order accordingly.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India and others and M.J. Ninama vs. The Post Master General, Ahmedabad:

The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a Disciplinary Authority can, under Sub-Rule (vi) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, impose a penalty of reduction in rank on a Government Servant recruited directly to a particular post, reducing them to a post lower than the one to which they were recruited.
There was a divergence of judicial opinion among High Courts: while some (Orissa, Karnataka) held such reduction impossible, others (Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad) held there was no limitation on this power, and a third view (Srinivasa Sastry case) suggested it was permissible only if the reduced post was in the line of promotion to the original post.
The Court examined the statutory language of Rule 11(vi), which allows reduction to a "lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service," noting that while the text does not explicitly limit the reduction to posts previously held, interpretative criteria suggest limitations to avoid absurd results.
The Court reasoned that reducing a direct recruit to a post they never held would effectively amount to dismissal from the higher post and reappointment to a lower one, potentially violating recruitment policies regarding qualifications and skills required for specific posts.
The Court held that the penalty of reduction in rank to a post lower than the one to which the Government Servant was initially directly recruited cannot be sustained, as it would lead to incongruous and unreasonable situations.
In the case of Nyadar Singh, who had already served out the period of reduction and been restored to his original post, the Court set aside the penalty and directed that the period of service in the reduced post be treated as service in the original post, subject to the condition that he is not entitled to any difference in salary for that period.
In the case of M.J. Ninama, the Court set aside the penalty of reduction in rank and directed his restoration to the post held before the penalty, also without entitlement to salary difference for the period served in the lower post.
The Court decided not to remit the matters to the Disciplinary Authority for the selection and imposition of a fresh penalty due to the lapse of time, considering it unfair to re-open the proceedings at that distance.

Judgment

VENKATACHALIAHI, J. :- The special leave petition and the appeal by two Central-Government-servants - raise an interesting point of construction of a Service Rule whether a Disciplinary Authority can, under Sub-Rule (vi) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, (Rules for short), impose the penalty of reduction on a Government Servant, recruited directly to a particular post, to a post lower than that to which he was so recruited; and if such a reduction is permissible, whether the reduction could only be to a post from which under the relevant Recruitment Rules promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited.

The petition and appeal are directed against the orders dated 8/9-4-1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the order dated 29-10-1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat, respectively, affirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authorities imposing on the petitioner and the appellant the penalty of reduction in rank to post lower than the one to which both of them were initially recruited.

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. (See Babaji Charan Rout v. State of Orissa, (1982) 1 Serv LJ 496 : Shivalingaswamy v. State of Karnataka, ILR (1985) Kant 1453).

However, the Madras, Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts have held that there is no limitation on the power to impose such a penalty. (See Gopal Rao v. CIT, (1976) 2 Mad LJ 508, Mahendra Kumar v. Union of India (1984) 1 Serv LJ 34 S. N. Dey v. Union of India, (1983) 2 Serv LJ 114 (All)). The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in C. S. Balakumar v. The Inspecting Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1987) 1 Serv LJ 18 has also subscribed to this view.

There is yet a third view, as typified in P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, (1979) 3 Serv LIZ 1509: and the one taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case from which the Special Leave Petition arises, that such a reduction in rank is permissible provided that promotion from the post to which the Government servant is reduced to the post from which he was so reduced is permissible, or, as it has been put, the post to which the Government servant is reduced is "in the line of promotion" and is a "feeder-service".

Special leave is granted in SLP (C) 9509 of 1986. Both the cases are taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A brief advertence to the facts of the cases is necessary :

SLP (C) 9506 of 1986 is by a certain Nyadar Singh, the unsuccessful petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, and is directed against that Tribunals order No. T-564/85 (SBCWP No. 1747/80) dated 28th February, 1986, rejecting his challenge to the order dated 4th Sept. 1976, of the disciplinary, authority imposing a penalty of reduction in rank reducing the petitioner from the post of Assistant Locust Warning Officer to which he was recruited directly on 31-10-1960 and confirmed on 27-12-1971 to that of Junior Technical Assistant pursuant to certain disciplinary proceedings held against him. In 1974, he was working as an Assistant Locust Warning Officer at Nohar. On 4-11-1975 in respect of certain acts alleged to constitute misconduct on his part certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in the order dated 4-9-1976 imposing the aforesaid penalty. The statutory appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed on 24-4-1979. Thereafter he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which, after the coming into force of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, stood transferred to and was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by its order dated 28-2-1986, now under appeal. It is relevant to mention that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(SC) 525

Cases Referred (1)