IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32956 of 2004(W)
1. A.N.NAGARAJ,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SPICES BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
For Petitioner :.
For Respondent :SRI.R.SATHISH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.32956 of 2004 (W)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P6, P11 & P13.
2. Although, these orders are challenged in its entirety,
when the matter was argued, the learned counsel for the petitioner
confines his submissions regarding the punishment that was
imposed and therefore, only to the extent it is relevant the facts
stated in the writ petition are referred to.
3. The petitioner entered service of the erstwhile
Cardamom Board, presently known as the Spices Board, the 1st
respondent herein, as a Junior Field Officer. He earned promotions
as Field Officer, Senior Field Officer, Assistant Director
(Development) and Deputy Director (Development). While working
at Gauahati, he was issued Ext.P4 memo of charges, which led to an
enquiry, the report of which is Ext.P6. The report was accepted and
he was issued Ext.P9 show cause notice proposing to impose
punishment of compulsory retirement. He submitted Ext.P10 reply
WP(C) No.32956/2004
-2-
and finally, he was issued Ext.P11 order imposing a punishment of
reduction to the post of Senior Field Officer and debarring
promotion permanently. He filed Ext.P12 appeal before the 3rd
respondent. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P13, where the
order in Ext.P11 debarring him permanently from promotion was
modified and was confined to five years. It is challenging Exts.P6,
P11 & P13, this writ petition was filed.
4. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that under Regulation 7 of the Spices Board Service
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1992, the
punishment that could be imposed is reduction to a lower-time
scale of pay, grade or post. According to the petitioner, at the time
when punishment was imposed on him, he was occupying the post
of Deputy Director (Development). The post of Deputy Director
(Development) is the promotion post of Assistant Director
(Development), which in turn is the promotion post of Senior Field
Officer. The contention raised is that even if reduction to a lower
grade or post could be imposed, it could be imposed only to the
immediate lower post and not to any other post. This contention of
WP(C) No.32956/2004
-3-
the petitioner is sought to be substantiated referring to the Apex
Court judgment in Ram Prakash Agnihotri v. District Judge U.P. and
Others (1991 Supp (1) SCC 190), and the judgment of this Court in
Sreekantan Nair v. Hindustan Latex Ltd. (2001(1) KLT 447).
5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the
respondent Board placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in
Nyadar Singh v. Union of India & Others (AIR 1988 SC 1979) and
contended that Rules permit reduction to any lower post. It is the
correctness of this issue, which calls for examination.
6. The Rule in question, is Rule 7 of the Spices Board
Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1992 and
Clause (vi) of the Rule 7 reads thus:-
“(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;”
7. Therefore, this Rule enables the disciplinary authority to
impose a major penalty of reduction to a lower time-scale of pay,
WP(C) No.32956/2004
-4-
grade or post. The question is whether the reduction could be to
any post lower than the immediate lower post. Similar Rule came up
for consideration before the Apex Court in the judgment relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, where it has been held
that reduction of rank can only be to the next lower rank in the
hierarchy and and not beyond that. Similar view has been taken by
this Court in the judgment in Sreekantan Nair’s case referred to
above, where in paragraph 4, it has been held that reduction can
only be to a lower grade/post and not to any lower grade/post. It
was further held that it is widely understood in service law while
imposing penalty of reduction in rank, that it shall be only to the
next post below. So viewed, the contention of the petitioner that he
could not have been reduced to the post of Senior Field Officer
deserves acceptance.
8. However, the learned standing counsel for the
respondent Board relied on the Apex Court judgment reported in
Nyadar Singh v. Union of India & Others (AIR 1988 SC 1979). In my
view that judgment does not admit of the interpretation that is
sought to be claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On
WP(C) No.32956/2004
-5-
the other hand, it is to be noticed that it was after referring to this
judgment also, that this Court has held in Sreekantan Nair’s case
that reduction can only be to a lower grade/post.
9. Therefore, Exts.P11 & P13 to the extent the petitioner is
reduced to the post of Senior Field Officer deserves interference and
is set aside. It is directed that the reduction will be only to the post
of Assistant Director (Development). Respondents 1 & 2 are
directed to work out the consequential benefits that are due to the
petitioner on that basis.
This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg