ivil Appeal No 3003 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 89th April 1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi in RA No 2 of 1986 in TA No T 564 of 1985
AND Civil Appeal No 889 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 291086 and 5111986 in the Central Administrative Tribunal Ahmedabad in OA No 103 of 1986
JS Bali and LR Singh for the Appellant in CA No 3003 of 1988
KMK Nair for the Appellant in CA No 889 of 1988
Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General A Subba Rao CVS Rao and Hemant Sharma for the Respondents
The judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH J
The special leave petition and the appeal by two Central Government servants raise an interesting point of construction of a service Rule whether a Disciplinary Authority can under Sub Rule vi of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965 Rules for short impose the penalty of reduction on a Government Servant recruited directly to a particular post to a post lower than that to which he was so recruited and if such a reduction is permissible whether the reduction could only be to a post from which under the relevant Recruitment Rules promotion to the one to which the Government servant was directly recruited
PG NO 549 The petition and appeal are directed against the orders dated 89 4 1986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Delhi and the order dated 29101986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Gujarat respectively affirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authorities imposing on the petitioner and the appellant the penalty of reduction in rank to post lower than the one to which both of them were initially recruited
There is a divergence of judicial opinion amongst the High Courts on the point The Division Benches of the Orissa and Karnataka High Courts have held that such a reduction in rank is not possible at all
See Babaji Charan Rout vs State of Orissa and Ors 1982 1 SLJ 496 Shivalingaswamy vs State of Karnataka 1985 ILR Kar
1453
However the Madras Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts have held that there is no limitation on the power to impose such a penalty
See Gopal Rao vs ClT  Mahendra Kumar vs Union of India 1984 1 All India Ser
Law Jour
34 SN Dey vs Union of India  Ors 1983 2 SLJ All 114
The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras in CS Balakumar vs The lnspecting Asstt
Commissioner of Income Tax 1987 1 All India SLJ 18 has also subscribed to this view
There is yet a third view as typified in PV Srinivasa Sastry vs Comptroller  Auditor General of India and the one taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case from which the Special Leave Petition arises that such a reduction in rank is permissible provided that promotion from the post to which the Government servant is reduced to the post from which he was so reduced is permissible or as it has been put the post to which the Government servant is reduced is in the line of promotion and is a feeder service
Special leave is granted in SLP C 9509 of 1986
Both the cases are taken up for final hearing heard and disposed of by this common Judgment
A brief advertance to the facts of the cases is necessary
SLP C 9506 of 1986 is by a certain Nyadar Singh the unsuccessful petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi and is directed against that the Tribunal s order No T 56485 SBCWP No 174780 dated PG NO 550 28th February 1986 rejecting his challenge to the order dated 4th Sept 1976 of the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of reduction in rank  reducing the petitioner from the post of Assistant Locust Warning Officer to which he was recruited directly on 31101960 and confirmed on 27121971 to that of Junior Technical Assistant pursuant to certain disciplinary proceedings held against him
In 1974 he was working as an Assistant Locust Warning Officer at Nohar
On 4111975 in respect of certain acts alleged to constitute misconduct on his part certain disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him which culminated in the order dated 491976 imposing the aforesaid penalty
The statutory appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed on 2441979
Thereafter he filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court which after the coming into force of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 stood transferred to and was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal New Delhi by its order dated 2821986 now under appeal
It is relevant to mention that in the year 1981 after the period of penalty of five years had spent itself out the appellant was re promoted to the post of Assistant Locust Warning Officer
Civil Appeal No 889 of 1988 is by MJ Ninama an Upper Division Clerk in the Post  Telegraph Circle Office Ahmedabad preferred against the order No OA 103 of 1986 dated 29101986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Ahmedabad rejecting appellant s challenge to the legality and correctness of the order dated 1551988 of the Post Master General who in modification of the earlier orders imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement on him substituted in its place the order imposing the penalty of reduction in rank  to the post of Lower Division Clerk pursuant to the findings recorded against the appellant on the charge of accepting illegal gratification
Appellant had been directly recruited as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Post Master General Gujarat Circle Ahmedabad
He was reduced to the lower post of Lower Division Clerk until he was found fit after a period of five years from 1551986
However the appellant s seniority on re promotion was directed to be fixed at what it would have been without the reduction
We have heard Shri JS Bali learned counse for the appellant Nyadar Singh and Shri KMK Nair learned counsel for the appellant Ninama and Shri Kuldip Singh learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents in both the appeals
Rule 11 of the Rules  enumerates the penalties which may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on a PG NO 551 Government servant
Sub rule vi of Rule 11 provides 11
The following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed on a Government servant namely Minor penalties Omitted as irrelevant here
Major penalties v   vi reduction to a lower time scale of pay grade post or Service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay grade post or Service from which he was reduced with or without further directions regarding conditions of the restoration to that grade or post or Service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade post or Service According to the contention of the appellants  learned counsel the appellants were as a result of the imposition of the penalty reduced in rank to a post lower than the one to which they were initially recruited which on a proper construction of the Rule is not permissible
Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Hussain Sasan Sahed Kaldgi vs State of Maharashtra Shri Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General however contended that this limitation which may be appropriate in the case of a reversion  which as the very concept implies could not be to a post which the Government servant did not earlier hold is inappropriate in a case of reduction in rank imposed as a penalty
Reduction in rank according to learned Additional Solicitor General has a wider import than reversion  and there is no reason why the power to impose this penalty which is permissible on the plain language of the Rule be whittled down by any other consideration
The learned Additional Solicitor General sought to rely upon certain pronouncements of the High Courts
The import of the expression Reduction in rank  has been examined in the context of the constitutional PG NO 552 protection afforded to Government servants under Article 3112 in relation to the three major penalties of dismissal  removal  and reduction in rank  and the constitutional safeguards to be satisfied before the imposition of these three major penalties
In Article 3112 the penalty of reduction in rank is classed along with dismissal  and removal  for the reason that the penalty of reduction in rank has the effect of removing a Government servant from a class or grade or category of post to a lessor class or grade or category
Though the Government servant is retained in service however as a result of the penalty he is removed from the post held by him either temporarily or permanently and retained in service in a lesser post
The expression rank  in reduction in rank  has for purposes of Article 3112 an obvious reference to the stratification of the posts or grades or categories in the official hierarchy
It does not refer to the mere seniority of the Government servant in the same class or grade or category
Though reduction in rank in one sense might connote the idea of reversion from a higher post to a lower post all reversions from a higher post are not necessarily reductions in rank
A person working in a higher post not substantively but purely on an officiating basis may for valid reasons be reverted to his substantive post
That would not by itself be reduction in rank unless circumstances of the reversion disclose a punitiveelement
The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General in substance is that while reversion  envisages that the lower post to which the Government servant is reverted should necessarily to amongst those earlier held by him and from which he had come on promotion the idea of reversion being a mere antonym of promotion the importing of such a limitation into a case of reduction in rank imposed as a penalty would be doing violence of the express statutory language and an unwarranted fettering of the power of the disciplinary authority
The idea of reduction in rank says the learned Additional Solicitor General is much wider than the ambit of the reversion and there is no justification to whittle down the ambit of this expression consciously employed by the rule making authority
Such a construction would create more difficulties than It might appear to solve and become counter productive in the sense that even where the disciplinary authority desires to retain a Government servant in service though not in the same post but in a lower one the Authority would be rendered helpless by such a construction being place of in the Rule
PG NO 553 The argument in favour of this construction of the Rule is stated by by a learned Single Judge in Gopal Rao s case supra thus  
ln effect what the learned counsel says is that there is no difference between the order of reversion and an order of reduction in rank that it is well established that reversion can be only to a post which a person held earlier and that reduction also can only be to a post or class of service which the person occupied at any time before    
In my view the expression reduction in rank covers a wider field than reversion to a lower post
It is true the word reversion always connotes a return to the original post or place
 But the word reduction has no such limitation and therefore reduction in rank extends even to a rank which the officer concerned never held  Similar view has been taken by a learned Single Judge of the the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mahendra Kumar vs Union of India and Anr 1985 1 SLR 8   
The Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules provide for several penalties which can be imposed for good and sufficient reasons
One of the major penalties contemplated by Rule II is reduction to a lower  
grade post or service  
 and I see m reason why this penalty cannot be imposed upon a person who on the date of imposition of penalty is continuing in the same post to which he was appointed by direct recruitment
This is not a case of reversion of a Government servant to his substantive post for want of vacancy or otherwise but this is a case of reduction by way of punishment
I am unable to read any limitation upon the power of the disciplinary authority to impose this punishment on the petitioner as suggested
No decision has also been brought to my notice supporting this contention It must however be observed that in the above case the High Court upheld the challenge of the appellant that there was no misconduct at all
The other observations as to the scope of the Rude were therefore unnecessary for the decision of the case
PG NO 554 7
The opposite view is taken by the Orissa High Court in Babaji Charan Rout vs State of Orissa and Ors 1982 1 All India SLJ 496 and by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Shivalingaswamy v State ot Karnataka l985 ILR Kar 1453
In the first case there is no discussion of the matter as the Division Bench merely followed an earlier unreported decision of another Division Bench of the same High Court
In the Karnataka case a person who had been directly recruited as Village Accountant had been reduced by the Disciplinary Authority to the post of daftarband
The Division Bench interpreting an analogous rule in the State s Service Rules held the reduction impermissible observing 
Rule 8 v of the Karnataka Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1957 as amended in our opinion does not justify such an action
It will lead to most unreasonable results if a person directly recruited to a post is reduced to a post which he never came to hold in service
That is not the scheme of the CCA Rules and therefore we have no hesitation in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no competence to impose the penalty of reducing the appellant to the post of Daftar band Attender when in fact he entered service only as Village Accountant
If the disciplinary authority felt that the gravity of the charges proved warrants that the appellant should be removed from service it was open to the authorities to make an order either dismissing or removing him from service  
The third view of the matter which while holding such a reduction is permissible but subject to the post to which the Government servant is reduced being one from which promotion to the post from which reduction is effected is permissible is to be found in Srinivasa Sastry s case supra where Rama Jois J of the Karnataka High Court held 
It is no doubt true that normally penalty of reduction in rank  is imposed only so as 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 and it appears that it is also PG NO 555 reasonable to do so
The learned counsel however could not substantiate the point with reference to the rule which empowered the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of reduction in rank as it does not make any such differentiation   See at 515 para 91
This is also the view taken by the Tribunal in the first of the appeals now before us
The Tribunal held  12
In the light of the aforesaid discussion we find that rule 11 vi of the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965 on its true construction permits reduction in rank in the case of a direct recruit if the post to which he is reduced is in the line of promotion ie is a feeder service  
 But as against this judicial opinion in Srinivasa Sastry s case the learned Judge as auther See Services under the State  Indian Law Institute page 220 expressed the view Therefore it is reasonable to take the view that a civil servant earns promotion by exhibiting his merit and ability and suffers reduction in rank instead of removal or dismissal for misconduct or inefficiency during his service in the higher post unless he is unworthy of being retained in the service and that the word reduction in rank  is used in Article 311 in this sense
It appears that the punishment by way of reduction in rank can be inflicted only against a civil servant who held a lower post and who has been promoted to the higher post   9
The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that when a legislative authority uses the expression reduction in rank without imposing any limitations there is no justification to fetter or otherwise limit the plenitude of the idea of reduction  looks at the first blush seemingly plausible and even somewhat attractive
The view has commended itself for acceptance to some of the High Courts and Tribunals
The meaning to be given to a particular statutory language depends on the evaluation of a number of interpretative criteria
Shorn of the context the words by themselves are slippery customers
The general presumption PG NO 556 is that these criteria do not detract or stand apart from but are to be harmonised with the well accepted legal principles
In a difficult case the number of relevant interpretative criteria may be so high that the task of the court in assessing their effect is correspondingly difficult
Even the statutory language apparently free from the sins of semantic ambiguity might not in the context of the purpose connote or convey its lexicographic thrust but would acquire a different shade or colour imparted to it by the variations of the interpretation criteria
The ambiguity need not necessarily be a grammatical ambiguity but one of appropriateness of the meaning in a particular context
Francis Bennion in his Statutory lnterpretation refers to the nature of the task in weighing the factors  it is necessary for the interpreter to assess the respective weights of the relevant interpretative factors and determine which of the opposing constructions they favour on balance  
 We may speak of the factors tending in a certain direction as a bundle of factors
This is figurative but then so is the idea of factors being weighed 
The court is unlikely even to consider the factors one by one and certainly will not proceed in any mechanistic way  
 We find that one bundle of factors favours one of the opposing constructions of the enactment
while the other bundle favours the other construction
As to opposing constructions see section 84 of this Code  
There may be factors drawn from a single interpretative criterion in both bundles 
  See Statutory lnterpretation  by Francis Bennion
1984 End page 390 It is true that where statutory language should be given its most obvious meaning to accord with how a man in the street might answer the problems posed by the words  the Statute must be taken as one finds it
Consideration relevant to interpretation are not whether a differently conceived or worded statute would have yielded results more consonant with fairness and reasonableness
Consequences do not alter the statutory Ianguage but may only help to fix its meaning
PG NO 557 10
As to whether a person initially recruited to a higher time scale grade or service or post can be reduced by way of punishment to a post in a lower time scale grade service or post which he never held before the statutory language authorises the imposition of penalty does not it is true by itself impose any limitations
The question is whether the interpretative factors relevant to the provision impart aNy such limitation
On a consideration of the relevant factors to which we will presently refer we must hold that they do
Though the idea of reduction may not be fully equivalent with reversion  there are certain assumptions basic to service law which bring in the limitations of the latter on the former
The penalty of reduction in rank of a Government servant initially recruited to a higher time scale grade service or post to a lower time scale grade service or post virtually amounts to his removal from the higher post and the substitution of his recruitment to lower post affecting the policy of recruitment itself
In Worthington vs Robin l896 75 Law Times Reports 446 where a supervisor of Inland Revenue was reduced in rank by statutory authority referring to the effect of reduction in rank
though in a different context brought about by the order of the statutory authority the Court of appeals understood the process as a dismissal from the higher post and reappointment to the Iower post
Rigby
LJ observed   
1 treat what has happened as a dismissal because though in effect he has been reduced to a lower position his new appointment is in fact a re appointment
If we could see any point in this action upon which there might be a possibility of his succeeding we should be most anxious to give him the opportunity  
 But action was dismissed because the civil servant was holding the office at the pleasure of the Commissioners under the Inland Revenue Regulation Act governing the situation
There are therefore certain considerations of policy that might militate against such a wide meaning to be given to the power
In conceivable cases the Government servant may not have the qualifications requisite for the post which may require and involve different though not necessarily higher skills and attainments
Here enter considerations of the recruitment policy
The rule must be read in consonance PG NO 558 with the general principles and so construed the expression reduction  in it would not admit of a wider connotation
The power should of course be available to reduce a civil servant to any lower time scale grade service or post from which he had subsequently earned his promotion
The Second and perhaps equally relevant consideration is the anomaly that a pushing to its logical limits of such power might produce
In Srinivasa Sastry s case supra the learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court visualised these anomalies thus  
Acceptance of the contentions urged for the respondents would lead to incongruous and absurd results
To illustrate could a Doctor be reduced in rank to the post of a Compounder or an Engineer to the post of a Fitter or a Teacher in a High School to the post of a Peon or a Scientific Officer to the post of a ministerial officer in the absence of any provision in the rules for the consideration of the case of the civil servant concerned for promotion from the latter category to the former category It appears to me that on a fair and proper construction of rule II vi of the Rules the condition precedent for the exercise of power under that rule by way of imposing penalty of reduction in rank to a lower post is that the higher post from which the concerned civil servant is sought to be reduced must be a promotional post in relation to the lower post to which he is sought to be reduced  
See at 516
 The argument that the rule enables a reduction in rank to a post lower than the one to which the civil servant was initially recruited for a specified period and also enables restoration of the Government servant to the original post with the restoration of seniority as well and that therefore there is nothing anomalous about the matter does not in our opinion wholly answer the problem
It is at best one of the criteria supporting a plausible view of the matter
The rule also enables an order without the stipulation of such restoration
The other implications of the effect of the reduction as a fresh induction into a lower grade service or post not at any time earlier held by the Government servant remain unanswered
Then again there is an inherent anomaly of a person recruited to the higher grade or class of post being asked to work in a lower grade which in certain conceivable cases might require different qualifications
It might be contended that these anomalies PG NO 559 Could well be avoided by a judicious choice of the penalty in a given fact situation and that these considerations are more matters to be taken into account in tailoring out the penalty than those limiting the scope of the punitive power itself
But an over all view of the balance of the relevant criteria indicates that it is reasonable to assume that the rule making authority did not intend to chothe the disciplinary authority with the power which would produce such anomaious and unreasonable situations
The contrary view taken by the High Courts in the several decisions referred to earlier cannot be taken to laid down the principle correctly
The pronouncement of this Court in Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaldgi vs State of Maharashtra l987 AIR SC 1627 relied upon by the appellant is one which deals with a case of reversion 
Appellant in that case who while working as a primary teacher in the services of the District Local Board offered himself for and was selected by direct recruitment to the post of the Asst
Deputy Educational Inspector
But after four years he was sought to be reverted to the post of primary teacher
His suit for the declaration that the purported reversion was illegal and void was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed by the High Court in appeal
This court restored the decree of the trial court
As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General the case dealt with the scope and limitations of the process of reversion  and is of no assistance in deciding the point under consideration
But this does not make any difference to the conclusion we have reached
The point now is as to what orders are to be made in these appeals
Appellants in the two appeals have been reduced to posts lower than these to which they were initially directly recruited
As these penalties cannot be sustained in the view we take of the rule in the normal course the penalties imposed would require to be set aside and the disciplinary authority directed to re consider which other penalty which it would now choose to impose
But we are of the opinion that it would be somewhat unfair that at this distance of time the matters are re opened
We think having regard to all the circumstances of the cases the orders that commend themselves appropriate in the two cases are in terms following i In the first of the appeals appellant Nyadar Singh has after the period of the reduction in rank has spent itself out been restored to the original position
It would therefore be sufficient to set aside the penalty imposed on him and direct that the period of service in the PG NO 560 reduced post be treated as service in the post held by him prior to imposition of the penalty subject to the condition however that the appellant shall not be entitled to any difference of salary for and during the period of reduction
In view of this we think that the proceedings taken against him should come to an end and there is no need to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for selection and imposition of a fresh penalty
ii In the case of MJ Ninama the penalty of reduction in rank is set aside and he shall be restored to the post which he held before the imposition of the penalty
However for the period if any served by him in the lower post pursuant to the penalty imposed on him he shall not be entitled to the difference of salary
It will also not be necessary to remit his case for fresh consideration of the choice of the penalty having regard to the lapse of time
It is ordered and the appeals disposed of accordingly
No costs
RSS Appeals disposed of


Summary:
Seven persons were convicted under sections 307149 325l49 3231149 and 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RZ from one year to three years
The High Court acquitted two of all charges and five of the offence under section 307149 while maintaining their conviction and sentence under section 325149 section 323149 and section 148
They were however released on probation of good conduct
Each one of them was ordered to pay compensation of Rs 2500 to Joginder who was seriously injured and whose power of speech was permanently impaired
Before this Court the appellant contended that the intention of the five accused was obviously to commit murder of Joginder and their acquittal under section 3O7 IPC was perverse
Disposing of the appeal it was HELD 1 Under section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is whether the act irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section
The intention or knowledge must be such as is necessary to constitute murder
Without this ingredient being established there can be no offence ofattempt to murder
Under section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused
Therefore the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue
In this case the respondents had no intention to commit murder
They had no motive either
575F G PG NO 571 PG NO 572 2 Many offenders are not dangerous criminals but are weak characters or who have surrendered to temptation or provocation
In placing such type of offenders on probation the Court encourages their own sense of responsibility for their future and protects them from the stigma and possible contamination of prison
576C D 3 In this case the High Court has observed that there was no previous history of enmity between the parties and the occurrence was an outcome of a sudden flare up
The accused had no intention to commit murder of any person
Therefore the extension of benefit of the beneficial legislation applicable to first offenders cannot be said to be inappropriate
l576D E 4 Section 357 empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction
This power of Courts to award compensation to victims is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto
This power is intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system
It is recommended to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way
577F H 5 The payment by way of compensation must be reasonable
What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case eg the nature of crime the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of the accused to pay etc
On these considerations the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 50000
578A B