CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20403 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 14, 2011 Harbans Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the punishment of his reversion from the post of Assistant Grade II (Depot) to Assistant Grade III (Depot) for three years. This punishment further carries stipulation that the pay would be drawn in a minimum scale of the reverted post. The review filed against this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20403 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: order was rejected and so the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III (D) by General Manager of Food Corporation of India on 23.12.1971. He was promoted as Assistant Grade II (D) statedly by respondent No.3 i.e. Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office. In the year 1991, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Grade I (D) but in the year 2004, he was reverted to Assistant Grade II (D). He has now been imposed the impugned penalty on 3.3.2005. Grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned penalty has been imposed by respondent No.4, who was not competent to do so as he had been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II (D) by respondent No.3, who is superior of respondent No.4 in hierarchy. The petitioner would also impugn this punishment on the ground that either of the penalty of reversion or reduction in lower time scale of pay could be imposed under Regulation 54(vi) and imposing these two penalties of reversion and reduction in pay scale would amount to double jeopardy. Subsequently, the petitioner has also been compulsorily retired on 7.4.2005. The petitioner had preferred statutory appeal against this order, which was dismissed on 5.9.2006. Review filed by the petitioner was also rejected on 27.11.2006. The petitioner has accordingly made the present approach through this writ petition. Respondent-Food Corporation of India has filed reply. The fact as averred in the petition that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Grade II (D) by respondent No.3 is denied, being incorrect. Reference is made to order of promotion, Annexure P-2, to point out CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20403 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: that the same was not ordered by respondent No.3 but by respondent No.4, who was the competent authority. It is stated that Zonal office, being the controlling authority, had only dealt with matter of posting. It is also stated that after imposing the penalty of reduction, the Disciplinary Authority had to fix the pay of the employee in the reduced time scale. It is, thus, stated that prescribing a particular stage in the time scale after reduction to a lower scale, would not amount to double jeopardy. While responding to the plea made on the basis of Regulation 54, it is pointed out that the same is clear to the effect that reduction to lower time scale can be imposed as a punishment alongwith the reduction to lower post. Accordingly, the respondents would plead that there is no merit in the pleas raised and the writ petition be dismissed. In support of his plea, the counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the case of Bachubha Ramsinhji Vs. Shri Shivlal I.P.S.Kutch and others, AIR 1970 Gujarat 180, where the petitioner had been promoted as Head Constable by D.I.G. but was dismissed by D.S.P., which was held to be violating Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The whole basis of the submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that the promotion order, Annexure P-2, was passed by respondent No.3. This fact is belied from the contents of Annexure P-2, which is signed by Assistant Manager (Administration) for Senior Regional Manager i.e. Respondent No.4. The plea of the counsel that the impugned order has not been passed by competent authority, thus, can not be accepted being factually misconceived. Thus, there would not be any need to go into CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20403 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: the ratio of law laid down in Bachubha Ramsinhji's case (supra). For the same reasoning, there would not be any need to discuss the ratio of law laid down in Krishan Kumar Vs. The Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1912 and Ram Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, 2009 (1) SCT 360, as it is noted that the petitioner was not promoted by respondent No.3. To plead that two punishments could not have been imposed on the petitioner, the counsel has relied on the case of Satya Narain Gupta Vs. UCO Bank and others, 2004(3) SCT 17. In this case, the Court has viewed that reduction to lower grade means reduction to lower stage from the stage the delinquent officer at the relevant point of time was working and not to the lowest grade. I fail to comprehend as to how the observation made in this case would be attracted to the facts of the present case. These observations were made by the Court while interpreting Regulation 4 (e) of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations. This Regulation made a provision for reduction to lower grade and so it was interpreted to mean that it would be reduction to lower stage from the stage the petitioner at the relevant point of time was working and not on the lowest grade. Thus, this judgment would in no manner would help the petitioner as Regulation 54 clearly makes a provision for awarding punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period and also as a reduction to lower time scale of pay or post, which would be a bar to promotion of an employee to the time scale of pay or post. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20403 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-FCI has relied upon Union of India and others Vs. G.Veerasamy, (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 251. While interpreting similar provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has held that the Disciplinary Authority has a power to fix the pay after imposing a punishment of a reduction to a lower time scale. The provision, which was under interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is as under:- “(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 from which the railway servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; The Supreme Court has held that the language of Clause (vi) of Rule 6 reproduced above is clearly and went on to observe as under:- “After reduction to the lower time scale the disciplinary authority has to fix the pay in terms of Rule 1322 of the Establishment Code. The Establishment Code clearly empowers the disciplinary authority to allow to draw any pay not exceeding the maximum of the lower post or time scale. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the Tribunal that it amounts to double punishment inasmuch as unless pay is fixed after reduction he may be entitled only to draw pay on the lowest of the time scale.” Accordingly, the order passed by the Central CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20403 OF 2009 :{ 6 }: Administrative Tribunal, holding that the order amounted to double jeopardy was set-aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is, thus, no merit in any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE