JUDGEMENT

This Intra Court appeal filed under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the order dated 18/07/2023 passed in Writ Petition No.11643 of 2017 (Shri Yeshwant Singh Garewal vs. Life Insurance Corp. of India & others) wherein the writ Court considered the ambit and scope of Clause 39(1)(d) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Regulations 1960).

2. Draped in brevity, the admitted facts are that the respondent/petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding which ended with issuance of order dated 27/02/2016 imposing punishment of ‘reduction to the minimum in the time scale of pay applicable to his cadre.’ This punishment order became subject matter of challenge before learned Single Bench mainly on the ground that in the teeth of Regulation 39(1)(d) such punishment is impermissible. The interpretation advanced by the petitioner was accepted by writ Court and it was held that in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2012) 5 SCC 242, the disciplinary authority cannot impose the punishment which is not prescribed under the relevant rules/regulations. While examining the aforesaid penalty on the anvil of Regulation 39(1)d), it was opined that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not one of penalty which is provided in Regulation 39(1)(d). Accordingly, the impugned orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority were set aside and matter was remanded back from the stage inquiry report was received.

3. Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far ratio decidendi of judgment of Vijay Singh (supra) is concerned, there is no scintilla of doubt that disciplinary authority cannot impose a punishment which is not prescribed by the enabling provision. While not disputing the said principle, Shri Ruprah strenuously contended that the Regulation 39(1)(d) covers the punishment imposed. He emphasized that ‘minimum’ is certainly ‘lower’ than the existing scale. Thus, writ Court has committed an error in interpreting the Regulation 39(1)(d).

4. Mrs. Shobha Menon, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, urged that the writ Court has rightly interpreted the relevant regulation and rightly came to hold that the word ‘minimum’ cannot be treated to be equivalent to word ‘lower’.

5. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

6. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Findings : 7. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of order of writ Court :-

“11. In order to deal with the rival contention first it is germane to taken note of the penalty which is provided in terms of the Regulation 39 (1)(d) of Regulations, 1960, the same is reproduced as under :

"Regulation 39 (1)(d) - reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale."

12. A perusal of Regulation 39 (1)(d) of Regulations 1960 reflects that the same provides for punishment of reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale. Therefore, the nature of the punishment which is provided in Regulation 39 (1)(d) of Regulations 1960 stipulate that by imposing the said penalty, the employee has to be put at loss to a stage of either scale or post which is lower then the existing stage or scale of the employee. The term "lower" which has been used in Regulation 39 (1)(d) of Regulations 1960 is required to be considered in the present case while placing the impugned order in juxtaposition with the same.

13. The impugned order which has been passed against the petitioner reflects that there is a penalty of reduction to the minimum in the time scale of pay applicable to cadre of the petitioner. Thus, t