Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22nd December, 2009 passed in W.P(C) No. 32956/2004 by which order, the writ petition filed by the respondent (petitioner in the writ petition) was disposed of modifying Exts. P11 and P13. The petitioner's reduction to the post of Senior Field Officer is set aside and observed that his reduction can be only to the post of Assistant Director (Development). The respondents were directed to workout the consequential benefits that are due to the petitioner on that basis. The Board is in appeal against the said judgment.

3. The brief facts necessary for deciding the appeal are that the 1st respondent, who shall be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, was entered into the service of the Board as Junior Field Officer. He was promoted as Field Officer, Senior Field Officer, Assistant Director (Development) and Deputy Director (Development). While working at Gauahati, a show cause notice was issued proposing punishment of compulsory retirement. The disciplinary authority, by Ext. P11 order, imposed punishment of reduction to the post of Senior Field Officer and debarring promotion permanently. He filed an appeal. The appeal was disposed of by which the order debarring him permanently from promotion was modified and was confined to five years only. Challenging the said order, the writ petition was filed.

4. The learned Single Judge, interpreting Rule 7 of the Spices Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1992, held that he could not have been reduced to the post of Senior Field Officer and he could have been reduced only to the next lower post of Assistant Director (Development). The learned Single Judge, while taking the aforesaid view, has placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court and one judgment of this Court, which shall be hereinafter referred to.

5. Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the judgment which has been relied on by the learned Single Judge did not lay down any such proposition of law that while awarding punishment of reduction in rank, reduction can only be made only to the next lower grade. He submits that Regulation 7, sub-regulation (vi) also does not contain any such limitation. He submits that taking a lenient view of the matter, the petitioner was reduced to the post of Senior Field Officer, which order needs no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The only issue which has been raised in the appeal is as to whether Regulation 7, sub-regulation (vi) of 1992 Regulations can be interpreted in a manner to confine the reduction only to the next lower grade or lower post as has been held by the learned Single Judge. Before we consider the issue, it is necessary to quote the aforesaid Regulation 1992, which is to the following effect:

"(vi) Reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade or post which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Board's employee to the time-scale of pay, grade or post from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post from which the Board's employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade or post."

A bare reading of the Regulation does not indicate that the words "reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade or post" can be read to mean reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade or post immediately below the post held by him. Accepting the interpretation that the rule contains any restriction to the effect that reduction is to be only on the next lower grade, we have to read some additional words in the Regulation. It is well settled that statutory rule has to be read as it is and neither any word can be added or substituted for interpre