In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. C.W.P.No. 14144 of 2006 Decided on Nov 07,2006. Union of India and others --Petitioners vs. Narinder Kumar Sharma and others --Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal Present: Mr.Jagdish Marwaha,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.H.S.Saini,Advocate,for respondent No.1. Jasbir Singh J:(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash order Annexure P-1, dated March 09,2006, vide which application filed by respondent No.1, was partly allowed. It is apparent from the record that respondent No.1 was working as Chief Trains Clerk, in the year 1998, when he was issued a charge-sheet, for imposition of major penalty, on account of causing loss to the department. In enquiry, he was found innocent, however, the punishing authority did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer and after adopting proper procedure, he was ordered to be removed from C.W.P.No. 14144 of 2006 -2- service. Respondent No.1 went in appeal , which was partly allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service in the grade of Rs.3050- 4590/-. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:- “You are reinstated in the service in the grade Rs. 3050- 4590/- after pay of Rs.3050/- for a period of five years from the date of reinstatement. After completion of five years, you will continue to remain in Grade Rs.3050/4590/-. The above reduction is with cumulative effect”. It is not in dispute that when charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, he was working as Chief Trains Clerk in the Grade of Rs.5500-9000/-.Vide order mentioned above, he was reverted two steps lower to the Post, he was occupying. By stating that punishment imposed upon respondent No.1, is contrary to the Rules, specially Rule 6 of Railway Servants (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1968, he filed an application before respondent No.2. and after analysing provisions of Rules, referred to above, and also previous judgment rendered by theTribunal, the order passed by the Appellate Authority was modified, the relevant portion of that order reads thus:- “ We have carefully considered the submissions made and find that this aspect of contentions definitely has merit. We are reproducing the relevant part of Rule 6 of the Ralway Servants ( Discipline & Appeal ) Rules:- “RULE- (6) Penalties:- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a railway servant, namely:- Minor Penalties:- C.W.P.No. 14144 of 2006 -3- (i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx Major Penalties:- (v) Same as provided for in clause (iii) (b), reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specififed period, with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service for which the railway servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; (vii) to (ix) xxx xxx xxx”. While interpreting these provisions in Annexure A-20, a D.B of this Bench had recorded the following observations:- “...... In the present case, we find that the punishment has the effect of reducing the applicant from the post of ISA in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 not to the lower rank/post of Accounts Assistant, not even to the still next lower post of Junior Accounts Assistant, but to the still lower post of Accounts Clerk in the scale of Rs. 3050-4590. Rule does not permit reduction of rank by three stages. We place reliance on a judgment in the case of Ram Parkash Agnihotri v. Distt. Judge, U.P.- 1996 (2) SCT 220 (S.C.). It was held that the petitioner in that case could not be reverted to two posts below as reduction should be to the next lower rank in hierarchy. The punishment order thus suffers from this illegality that he has been punished with reduction not to the next lower rank or post, but to the lowest post by reduction of two lower C.W.P.No. 14144 of 2006 -4- ranks/posts.” We find that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Vijay Kumar and the law laid down in the case of Ram Parkash Agnihotri (supra). Applicant has been given punishment which has merged into the final orders, dated 25.9.2003, Annexure A-1/1 and Annexure A- 2. Applicant had been working as Chief Trains Clerk in the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000 to which stage he had reached after earning promotion from the post of Head Trains Clerk in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and from the scale of Rs.3050-4590. He has not only been reverted to the lowest post by two stages but has been reduced to the initial post with the initial pay scale of pay of the Trains Clerk. In our opinion, this punishment is definitely against the provisions of the rules and the law as explained in judgment Annexure A-20 etc. In these circumstances, the punishment order is hereby quashed and set aside with the observations that respondents are within their powers and are directed to pass a fresh order of punishment which should be in accordance with the rules as observed in Annexure A-20 which would normally mean that he could be reduced from the grade of Rs.5500-9000 to the next lower grade/rank of Rs.5000-8000 by passing fresh orders of punishment against the applicant on the proven misconduct, as discussed above, in accordance with the rules. They should also take into consideration the aspects regarding directions for specifying a particular period of punishment, any condition of restoration to the grade or post from which the applicant has been reduced and re-fixation of his pay with restoration of the pay in accordance with the punishment order which can be done by them by way of amendment of the earlier punishment orders. These aspects are left to the discretion of the C.W.P.No. 14144 of 2006 -5- Disciplinary Authority keeping in view the orders of the Appellate Authority which had set aside the order of removal from service. Respondent shall pass such fresh orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which should meet with all the aspects, as mentioned above. Needless to say that applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of such modification of the punishment order, including arrears, if any, but without any interest thereon”. After going through the record of this case, we feel that order passed is perfectly justified. Rule envisages that in case of proved misconduct, officer can be reverted to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay. It does not amount to lowest scale. In the present case, respondent No.1 was reverted to two steps down to the post at which he was working, when charge-sheet was issued to him. In view of facts mentioned above, we feel that no case is made out to interefere in the order passed. Dismissed. However, one month's time is granted to the petitioners to comply with the order passed by respondent No.2. (Jasbir Singh) Judge Nov 07,2006, (Pritam Pal) RR Judge