The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict construction and interpretation of Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, emphasizing its disjunctive nature and concluding that the penalty of forfeiture of approved service permanently entailing reduction in pay and deferment of increments is not in accordance with the law.

( 1 ) INTERPRETATION of Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 ( hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, the said Rules ) falls for consideration in these writ petitions.

THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 29. 03. 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi ( hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as, the Tribunal ) whereby and whereunder the Original Application being O. A. No. 1805 of 1995 filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed. C. W. P. NO. 5006 OF 2000 :- an order dated 26. 07. 1999 passed by the Tribunal whereby and whereunder the Original Application being O. A. No. 432 of 1994 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed is in question in this writ petition. C. W. P. NO. 61428 OF 2001 :- an order dated 29. 05. 2001 passed by the Tribunal whereby and whereunder the Original Application being O. A. No. 60 of 2000 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed is in question in this writ petition.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of adverting to the question involved in these writ petitions, it is necessary to quote the following from an order dated 13. 10. 1994 passed against Shakti singh:-

"the charge levelled against Inspr. Shakti Singh, No. D-1/231 is fully proved. . . Thus, the pay of Inspr. Shakti Singh, no. D-1/231 is reduced by Rvc stages from rs. 2525/- to Rs. 2100/- in the time scale of pay for a period of five years. He will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. "

( 3 ) RULE 8 of the said Rules provides for different nature of penalties which may be imposed upon the delinquent officers. Rule 8 (d) of the said Rules is as follows :-

"8. Principles for inflicting penalties. (d) Forfeiture of approved service. Approved service may he forfeited permanently or temporarily for a specified period as under :- (i) For purposes of promotion or seniority (Permanent only ). (ii) Entailing reduction in pay or deferment of an increment or increments (permanently) or temporarily ). Rule 8 (d) of the said Rules provides that approved service may be forfeited permanently or temporarily for a specified period as mentioned therein. Such a forfeiture of approved service may be (i) for purposes of promotion or seniority, which can only be permanent in nature; (ii) entailing reduction of pay; and/or (iii) deferment of an increment or increments permanently or temporarily.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that by reason of the order impugned before the Tribunal, the services of the petitioner were forfeited as a result whereof reduction in his pay was directed. Thus, his pay was further reduced by five stages from Rs. 2525/- to Rs. 2,100/- in the time scale of pay for a period of five years. Yet again, it was directed that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of the said period such reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the said Rules is disjunctive in nature. It employ the word or and not and . Pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said Rules, either reduction in pay may be directed or increment or increments, which may again either permanent or temporary in nature be directed to be deferred. Both orders cannot be passed together. Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the said Rules is a penal provision. It, therefore, must be strictly construed. The words of the statute, as is well known, shall be understood in their ordinary or popular sense. Sentences are required to be construed according to their grammatical meaning. Rule of interpretation may be taken recourse to, unless the plain language used gives rise to an absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. Keeping in view the aforementioned basic principles in mind, the said rule is re