Ought To Have Been Reverted To Lower Post Held Prior To Being Promoted: Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Order Imposing Penalty Of Reversal To Lowest Post

The Petitioner had approached the High Court by preferring a writ petition challenging the legality of the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench by which petitioner’s original application was dismissed thereby, holding that petitioner had to suffer the punishment of reversal from the post of Junior 3 Engineer (Electrical) to the Post of Technician Grade – III for a period of 1 year which would operate to postponement of increment and thereafter, the status of the petitioner would be restored. The intervening period from the date of termination to reinstatement was ordered to be treated as Dies non.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held, “Coming to the facts of the present case in light of Section 6(vi) of the Rules of 1968 as well as the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, both are unjustified in imposing the penalty of reversal from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade – III upon the petitioner as he ought to have been reverted to the lower post of Master Craftsman, which he was holding prior to being promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical), rather he has been reverted to the lowest post of Technician Grade – III to which he was originally appointed, which is unsustainable and bad in law.”

Advocate B.P. Rao represented the Petitioner, while DSG Ramakant Mishra represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was originally appointed as Technician Grade – III in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP 1900 PB-1 and was ultimately promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) with pay scale of Rs 9300-34800 + GP 4200 PB-2. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet for remaining unauthorizedly absent from June 19, 2013 to July 15, 2013 and after conducting a departmental enquiry against him, the Disciplinary Authority vide punishment order imposed the punishment of removal from service without sanctioning compassionate allowance. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment order and inflicted the punishment of reversal from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade – III for a period of 3 years.

It was also ordered that the period of punishment of 3 years shall operate to postpone future increments, and the intervening period from the date of original penalty to joining duty would be treated as dies non. The petitioner then filed a revision petition whereby the Revisional Authority slightly modified the punishment and reduced the period of 3 years to 1 year. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s original application and affirmed the order passed by the Revisional Authority, against which the writ petition came to be preferred before the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Rule 6(vi) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, the Bench noted that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is reduction in rank, which is one of the major penalties that can be imposed upon a Railway servant. As per the Bench, the expression “rank”, in the concept of “reduction in rank”, refers to the stratification of the positions or grades or categories in the official hierarchy.

The Bench further referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nyadar Singh v. Union of India and Others (1988) wherein it has been observed that the penalty of ‘reduction in rank is imposed only to bring down a civil servant to a lower time scale, grade, service or post, held earlier by him before promotion and not below the post, grade, service, or time scale to which a civil servant was directly recruited.

The Bench thus set aside the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Revisional Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority, to the extent of reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade – III. “...it is held that petitioner stands reverted from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) Pay Rs. 13960/- + Rs. 4200/- (GP) in PB-2 Pay Rs. 9300-34800/- to the post of Master Craftsman pay Rs. 9300- 34800/- + GP 4200) PB-2 by fixing at stage Rs. 9300/- + RS 4200 (GP) for a period of one year. The rest of the conditions imposed by the Revisional Authority shall remain intact. Petitioner will be entitled for consequential benefits, if any”, it concluded.

Cause Title: C.C.S. Rao v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:51086-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate B.P. Rao

Respondent: DSG Ramakant Mishra, Advocates Rishabh Deo Singh

Click here to read/download Order