2010 Supreme(SC) 414

2010 (4) Supreme 114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
South Bengal State Transport Corporation — Appellant
versus
Ashok Kumar Ghosh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4338 of 2010
(arising out of SLP(C)No.545 of 2009)
Decided on : 6-05-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Even though it may be open for a disciplinary authority to initiate the departmental proceedings on consideration of the reply of an employee but as an absolute proposition of law it cannot be said that before initiating departmental enquiry or appointing Enquiry Officer, reply of the delinquent employee is required to be obtained and considered unless it is the requirement of the rules.
2. While an employee can be reverted to a lower post or service, he cannot be reverted to a post lower than the post in which he entered service.
3. It is well settled that reversion to a lower post or service does not permit reversion to a post outside the cadre that is from regular post to a daily wage post.

Headnote:Service Law- South Bengal State Transport Corporation Service Regulations - Regulation 38(2) -Writ petitioner-respondent No.1, working as conductor with appellant -South Bengal State Transport Corporation at the relevant time was charged for allowing ticketless passenger to travel in the bus and for possession of excess amount of Rs.345/- in the cash-bag- On enquiry disciplinary authority inflicted punishment and relegated delinquent employee, a conductor to the status of Daily Rated Conductor- Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court whereby it had dismissed appeal preferred by petitioner and affirmed the order of Single Judge passed in writ petition quashing the order of punishment inflicted on respondent No.1-Plea of appellant-Corporation that mere appointment of Enquiry Officer while issuing chargesheet does not reflect bias and hence, finding recorded by High Court that initiation of departmental proceedings was not free from bias was erroneous-Held neither Regulation 38(2) nor Regulation 38(3) provided that before appointment of Enquiry Officer reply of delinquent employee was to be considered- Even though it may be open for a disciplinary authority to initiate the departmental proceedings on consideration of reply of an employee but as an absolute proposition of law it cannot be said that before initiating departmental enquiry or appointing Enquiry Officer, reply of delinquent employee is required to be obtained and considered unless it is the requirement of the rules- There may be cases where the charges are of such a nature that disciplinary authority may not require any reply from delinquent employee but straightway initiates departmental enquiry and appoint an Enquiry Officer- In the instant case bus was checked by flying squad of appellant-Corporation itself and in view of what had been found by it, disciplinary authority while framing the charge had appointed the Enquiry Officer- Hence held that mere appointment of Enquiry Officer while framing the charge sheet, even before considering the reply of delinquent employee, did not reflect any bias-Apart from that Regulation 38(2) of Regulations nowhere contemplated giving an opportunity to delinquent employee -Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and finding of guilt recorded by Disciplinary Authority upheld-Appeal allowed in part directing that instead of reversion to the post of daily wage conductor punishment was substituted as reduction to lowest stage of the time scale applicable to post of conductor. (Paras 11, 13, 18)

       Service Law- South Bengal State Transport Corporation Service Regulations - Regulations 36(4),36(5) -Writ petitioner-respondent No.1, working as conductor with appellant -South Bengal State Transport Corporation at the relevant time was charged for allowing ticketless passenger to travel in the bus and for possession of excess amount of Rs.345/- in the cash-bag- On enquiry disciplinary authority inflicted punishment and relegated delinquent employee, a conductor to the status of Daily Rated Conductor- Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court whereby it had dismissed appeal preferred by petitioner and affirmed the order of Single Judge passed in writ petition quashing the order of punishment inflicted on respondent No.1-The punishment inflicted on the delinquent employee was of relegating him to the status of Daily Rated Conductor from the post of conductor- The post of conductor carries a time scale and Regulation 36(4) provides for penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a specified period- The reduction to a lower stage in the time scale would obviously mean that the employee retains the same post but the scale of pay, which every post carries, can be reduced to a lower stage-Relegation of the delinquent employee to the status of Daily Rated Conductor could not be said to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay or reduction to a lower grade as delinquent employee had been deprived of the post of conductor- This reduction to a lower stage, had to be in the scale of pay of the conductor itself- Reduction to a lower grade should be with reference to the same post- Punishment inflicted also did not come within the ambit of reduction to a lower post or grade as contemplated under Regulation 36(5) of the Regulations- Punishment inflicted on delinquent employee not being one of punishments enumerated in Regulation 36, was not permissible in law. (Paras 15, 16)

       Facts of the Case :

       Writ petitioner-respondent No.1, working as Conductor with appellant -South Bengal State Transport Corporation at the relevant time herein in the instant case was charged for allowing ticketless passenger to travel in the bus and for possession of excess amount of Rs.345/- in the cash-bag. On enquiry disciplinary authority inflicted punishment and relegated delinquent employee, a Conductor to the status of Daily Rated Conductor.

       2.Present Appeal has been filed against judgment and order passed by High Court whereby it had dismissed appeal preferred by petitioner and affirmed the order of Single Judge passed in writ petition quashing the order of punishment inflicted on respondent No.1.Plea of appellant-Corporation that mere appointment of Enquiry Officer while issuing chargesheet does not reflect bias and hence, finding recorded by High Court that initiation of departmental proceedings was not free from bias was erroneous.

       Findings of the Court :

       Neither Regulation 38(2) nor Regulation 38(3) provided that before appointment of Enquiry Officer reply of delinquent employee was to be Considered. Even though it may be open for a disciplinary authority to initiate the departmental proceedings on consideration of reply of an employee but as an absolute proposition of law it cannot be said that before initiating departmental enquiry or appointing Enquiry Officer, reply of delinquent employee is required to be obtained and considered unless it is the requirement of the rules. There may be cases where the charges are of such a nature that disciplinary authority may not require any reply from delinquent employee but straightway initiates departmental enquiry and appoint an Enquiry Officer. In the instant case Bus was checked by flying squad of appellant-Corporation itself and in view of what had been found by it, disciplinary authority while framing the charge had appointed the Enquiry Officer. Hence held that mere appointment of Enquiry Officer while framing the charge sheet, even before considering the reply of delinquent employee, did not reflect any bias.Impugned judgment of High Court was set aside and finding of guilt recorded by Disciplinary Authority was upheld. Appeal was allowed in part directing that instead of reversion to the post of daily wage conductor punishment was substituted as reduction to lowest stage of the time scale applicable to post of conductor.