IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32956 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.N.NAGARAJ, SENIOR FIELD OFFICER, SPICES BOARD, RAJAPALAYAM, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN-626 117. BY ADV. . SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.NAVEEN.T RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H.BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN-682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H. BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O.,COCHIN-682 025. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOGABHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011. ADV. SRI.R.SATHISH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R3 SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32956/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/02/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R2. P2 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 07/10/2002 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO R1. P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO.VIG:COM:07:02 DATED 27/12/2002 ISSUED BY R2. P4 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.VIG:DPC:05:02 DATED 22/01/2003 ISSUED BY R2 (MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS). P5 : COPY OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R1 DATED 07/03/2003. P6 : COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER. P7 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.VIG:DPC:07:02 DATED 27/08/2003 ISSUED BY R2. P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/09/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R2. P9 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.VIG:DPC:07:02 DATED 31/10/2003 ISSUED BY R2. P10: COPY OF REPLY DATED 18/11/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO R2. P11 : COPY OF ORDER NO.VIG:DPC:07:02 DATED 18/02/2004 ISSUED BY R2. P12 : COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 27/03/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R3. P13 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 09/09/2004 ISSUED BY R3 SENT BY MEMORANDUM NO.VIG/DPC/07/02 DATED 21/09/2004. P14 : COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.VIG/DPC/07/02 DATED 18/03/2004 ISSUED BY R2. P15 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 05/04/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a) : COPY OF ORDER DATED 31/12/1993 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SPICES BOARD. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg 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