IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10111 of 2006 SRI SUNI LAL BESRA NO.4256609(M) Havildar (Clerk) Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4. 25.09.2008 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Union of India. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite the fact that the writ petition was filed after serving copies on the Counsel for the respondents more than two years ago and despite specific adjournment for the purpose in the year 2008. The petitioner who at the relevant time holding the post of Havildar was proceeded against departmentally for a summary Court Marshal. An order of punishment came to be passed on 22.1.1998 by the Commandant imposing the punishment:- (a) to be dismissed from service; and (b) to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in civil prison. The order also granted him liberty to petition against the same in accordance with Army Rules. In between followed CWJC No. 4964 of 1998 when it was disposed with directions on 19.4.1999 to prefer a revision application to be disposed by a speaking order. Then has followed a communication dated 23.4.1998 from the Commandant of the decision taken by the General Officer Commanding M.P.B. and O on the revision application of the petitioner. The latter is an officer superior in rank to the Commandant. The communication is that the earlier punishment of dismissal and rigorous imprisonment for one year had been passed. That the General Officer Commanding remitted the sentence to one of reduction to the rank and imprisonment for six months. It however further contained a clause stating to be dismissed from service. At this stage the inherent incongruousness in the decision of the superior authority is too apparent to be ignored. A punishment for dismissal was imposed along with imprisonment for a specified period. On a revision application this punishment was remitted to one of reduction in rank and reduction in the period of imprisonment. There cannot be reduction in rank and punishment of dismissal simultaneously. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court holds that the dismissal from service is unjustified and not in consonance with the decision of the revisional authority himself to reduce the punishment from dismissal to reduction in rank. The order dated 7.10.1999 and the communication dated 23.4.1998 are therefore quashed to the extent that they order dismissal of the petitioner. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above only. The petitioner stands restored to his status in service in terms of the order of reduction in rank. If the petitioner makes any claim for back wages in accordance with the order of punishment that shall have to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with the settled principles of status of the petitioner in the interregnum and a speaking order passed thereon. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)