1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -126
496. Situations in which reversion shall amount to Reduction in Rank
An order of reversion, or posting to a lower post, shall be a penal order amounting to ‘Reduction in rank’, in the following situations :
(i) Right to the Post. The Government servant had a right to hold the higher post or rank. In other words, he had been confirmed or declared quasi-permanent in that post [Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36].
(ii) Evil consequences. The order of reversion results in loss of seniority, pay and allowances or other conditions of service relating to a post substantively held by him [ibid]
(iii) Stigma. The order of reversion results in attaching a stigma to the employee [Parshotam Lal Dhingra case, supra); Stating in the order that he was found unsuitable to hold the post do not amount to a stigma [Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba, (1969)3 SCC 603]. Same is the position if the order states that his work was found to be unsatisfactory [State of Mysore v. M.K. Gadgoli, AIR 1977 SC 1617]. It has also been held that reversion by itself will not be a stigma (K.H. Phadnis v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 998).
(iv) Misconduct very foundation of Order. Some misconduct on the part of the employee is very foundation of the order of reversion [State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Misra, AIR 1971 SC 1011].
(v) The reversion is not a pure accident of service'
497. The Government of India have issued instructions vide. DOP&T OM No25013/11/87-Estt(A) dated 4.8.1989 providing that is a Government servant is not found fit to continue in the post which he is holding either on grounds of ineffectiveness or because of doubtful integrity, he shall be retired forthwith in accordance with the rules governing compulsory retirement. The provisions regarding grant of an option to revert to the next lower post from which he was promoted, vide. Department's O.M. No. 25013/14/77-Estt. (A) dated 5.1.1978 and 25013/4/78-Estt. (A), dated 9.8.1978 stand rescinded.
498. It was held that no “Reduction in rank’ was involved in following cases :
(i) Suspension from Service [O.P. Gupta v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 600).
(ii) Reversion of a deputationist to his parent department [M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, (1973)2 SCC 650], even before expiry of period of deputation [P. Shyama Prasad v. Chief Commissioner, SLR 1970 Cal. 161].
(iii) Reversion on abolition of post. But, the order abolishing the post must not be arbitrary, mala fide or a mask of some penal action [M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 2641).
(iv) Removal of name from the provisional select list for the purpose of promotion [Shitla Sahai Srivastava v. G.M., N.E. Railway, AIR 1966 SC 1197].
(v) Reversion account of unsuitability to hold the higher post [Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba, (1969)3 SCC 603). Even mention in the reversion order that he was found unsuitable to hold the post does not alter the position (ibid.). The fact that his juniors continued to officiate in the higher post also does not, per se, make it a penal order (D.P.O. v. Raghavendrachar, AIR 1966 SC 1529].
(vi) for the only reason that he was not declared as Head of Department in the other post while he was so in the former post. The reason is - "The rank in Government service does not depend on the mere circumstance that the Government servant, in the discharge of his duties, is given certain powers [K. Gopaul v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1864).
(vii) Losing some places in the seniority list (High Court of Calcutta v. Amal Kumar Roy, AIR 1962 SC 1704), even if he loses a higher salary or his chances of promotion are reduced. The reason is that remedy against such action would lie in the service rules and not under Art. 311(2) of the Constitution (State of Punjab v. Kishandas, supra].
(viii) When there was no change in the conditions of service, emoluments etc. but merely a change in the designation of the post was involved [Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 SC 228].
(ix) Reversion of a person officiating in higher post [Parshotam Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36).
(x) Reversion from the higher post held in a temporary capacity on account of its abolition on reorganization of the Department [P.B. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1972 SC 908]. In this case the appellant's appointment to the lower class II post was held to be a fresh appointment.
(xi) Reversion to his lower substantive post of a person appointed on probation to a higher post [H.G. Pant v. Rajasthan University, AIR 1978 Raj. -FB 72].
(xii) Reversion from the post to which he was promoted in ad-hoc capacity without following prescribed procedure (Biroo Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2005 Lab. IC 608 (Patna)].
(xiii) Reversion of a person promoted in officiating capacity because his promotion was not approved by the Public Service Commission as required by the rules on ground of his unsuitability (State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1977 SC 629]. Reversion on account of cancellation of officiating promotion [Reena Pandey v. State of U.P., C.A. No. 2320 of 2002 decided by Supreme Court on 22.4.2008].
499. Reduction in Rank can only be to the next lower post in the hierarchy
The petitioner, who was a Stenographer, Grade I, was reduced to the rank of Clerk/Typist. The Supreme Court accepted his plea that he could have been reduced to the next lower rank in the hierarchy only and substituted the order of reduction to the post of Stenographer, Grade II [Ram Prakash Agnihotri v. District Judge, U.P., (1991) Supp. I SCC 190].
500. Reduction below the Post to which one was recruited initially is not permissible.
The Supreme Court has held that a person cannot be reduced, even as penalty, to a post lower to the one to which he was initially recruited [Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra, (1988)4 SCC 168; Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, (1988)4 SCC 170). The Court relied on the judgment in Worthington v. Robinson, (1896) 75 LTR 446 (CA), and held that such a reduction “virtually amounts to his removal from the higher post and substitution of his recruitment to lower post, affecting the policy of recruitment itself' [Nyadar Singh case
Post a Comment