Employees Can Only Be Reverted To Immediate Lower Post From Which They Were Promoted, Not To Lowest Post: Chhattisgarh HC
A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal held that an employee can only be reverted to the immediate lower post from which they were promoted and reverting them to a post lower than that is unsustainable and bad in law.
Background Facts
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Technician Grade–III in the South East Central Railway. He was progressively promoted through the ranks. He reached the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). On 15.07.2013, he was issued a charge-sheet for remaining unauthorizedly absent from 19.06.2013 to 15.07.2013. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the extreme penalty of removal from service after a departmental enquiry.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment. Therefore, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade–III for a period of three years. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition. The Revisional Authority upheld the reversion but reduced the punishment period from three years to one year. After this he was to be restored to the post of Junior Engineer. The petitioner challenged this punishment by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
It was submitted by the petitioner that the Tribunal was unjustified in affirming the punishment of reversion from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade–III. The petitioner relied upon Rule 6(vi) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. It provides for the major penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service. It was contended that this rule mandates that a promotee can only be reverted to the immediate lower post from which he was promoted, and not to the lowest post in his service. Therefore, the petitioner should have been reverted to the post of Master Craftsman, which was the immediate lower post he held prior to his promotion to Junior Engineer.
On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that considering the nature and gravity of the petitioner's misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon him was suitable and proportionate. The respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the Court that the penalty of reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade–III was legally sustainable. Rule 6(vi) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 was noted by the court which provides for the major penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service. It was held that the term rank in the context of “reduction in rank” refers to a specific stratification within the official hierarchy.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Nyadar Singh v. Union of India was relied upon wherein it was held that reduction in rank means a movement from a class, grade, or category of a post to a lower one. Further the case of Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra was relied upon wherein it was held that a promotee can only be reverted to the post from which he was promoted, and not to a post lower than that.
It was held by the court that the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, both were unjustified in imposing the penalty of reversal from the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) to the post of Technician Grade – III upon the petitioner as he ought to have been reverted to the lower post of Master Craftsman, which he was holding prior to being promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical). However, he had been reverted to the lowest post of Technician Grade – III to which he was originally appointed, which is unsustainable and bad in law.
Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal was set aside to the extent to which it reverted the petitioner to Technician Grade–III. It was held that the petitioner shall stand reverted to the post of Master Craftsman for a period of one year, with all other conditions imposed by the Revisional Authority remaining intact.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner employee was partially allowed by the court.
Case Name : C.C.S. Rao Vs. Union of India & Others
Case No. : Writ Petition (S) No. 371 of 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner : B.P. Rao, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents : Ramakant Mishra, DSG with Rishabh Deo Singh, Advocate