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

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.