RBE No. 302/1989: Reduction to Lower Time Scale of Pay
No.E(D&A)89 RG6-108, dated 12.12.1989
Sub: Imposition of punishment of reduction to lower time scale of pay – Fixation of pay in the lower scale.
A Railway servant who was drawing pay of Rs.620 in the scale of Rs.425-700 (RS) was promoted to the scale Rs.550-750 (RS) and was drawing a pay of Rs.725 in the higher scale. As a result of disciplinary proceeding the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction to the lower time scale of Rs.425-700 (RS) for a period of two years with cumulative effect and his pay in the lower scale was fixed at the stage of Rs.500 which was less than what he was drawing at the time of his promotion to the higher grade. This fixation was done in consonance with provisions of FR 28 (1322 R.II-1988 Edition).
Aggrieved by the punishment the railway servant filed a writ petition before the CAT/Hyderabad claiming that the order of the Disciplinary Authority reducing him to a lower scale of pay and also fixing his pay at Rs.500 in the lower scale amounted to double punishment. The CAT/Hyderabad on consideration of the case held that disciplinary authority’s order was not justified and that it was actually a case of imposition double punishment viz. item (v) and (vi) of Rule 6 of the RS(D&A) Rules, 1968.
The question of whether a Special Leave Petition should be filed in the Supreme Court was considered. It was decided that in the individual case in question, no Special Leave Petition should be filed mainly because of the time bar. However, during discussions, it came to light that the Rajasthan High Court in a judgment, dated 15.01.1974 in the case of Shyama and others v. Union of India [1975 (1) SLR 511] had held that an order of a Disciplinary Authority reducing a government servant to a lower time scale of pay and giving further directions fixing his pay in the lower grade did not amount to double punishment. Extracts of paras 9 and 10 of the concerned judgment are enclosed herewith.
The above the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court may please be brought to the notice of all concerned so that in any similar case which may arise before the CAT, this case may be quoted in augments to emphasize that such orders are perfectly valid and do not constitute double punishment. In case there are similar judgments delivered by CAT, these should be brought to our notice immediately for filing SLPs.
Extracts of paras 9 and 10 of Rajasthan High Court in a judgment dated 15.01.1974 in the case of Shyama and others v. Union of India.
9. The submission of Shrimali is that in the present case Shri Saini has not only been reduced to the lower grade but his salary was also reduced from Rs.212 to 175 and in this manner, he has been doubly punished and it is not contemplated by Rule 1707. This argument was also made before the lower appellate court. But it was over-ruled on the basis of Rule 2024 of the Code, which runs to the following effect:
“2024 (FR 28) – Pay on reduction to lower post. The authority which orders the reduction of a railway servant as a penalty from a higher to a lower post or time scale may allow him to draw any pay, not exceeding the maximum of the lower post, or time scale which it may think proper.”
10. According to this rule when a Railway servant is reduced to a lower time scale the authority which orders the reduction can allow him to draw any pay which it may think proper. This rule, further contains a prohibition that the authority cannot allowed the railway servant to draw pay exceeding the maximum of the lower post or time scale. In the present case the plaintiff was drawing Rs.212 per month. The maximum of the grade to be he was reduced was Rs.212. The authority could not have allowed him to draw any pay beyond the maximum. The situation does not arise in this case. But it was open to the authority to allow him to draw any pay within that grade which he thought proper. It is true, that the authority could have fixed him up at Rs.212 without contravening any rule. But in the discretion of the punishing authority, the plaintiff was fixed at Rs.175 per month it had not contravened any rule of the Railway Establishment Code. It may, as well, be observed here that when the Railway servant is reduced to a lower grade or to a lower time-scale of the post it envisages not only reduction in rank but it also entails, his pay is reduced in view of the Rule 2024 extracted above that railway servant has been awarded more than the penalty prescribed under ruled 1707(iv). This can be well illustrated. In case the plaintiff had been drawing more than Rs.212 that is more than the maximum of the lower grade, his salary was bound to be reduced in terms of rule 2024. Therefore, the combined effect of the rules is obviously against the construction sought to be put by Mr. Shrimali of Rule 1707(iv). In my opinion the case in hand is not a case of double punishment; and the impugned order clearly falls within the ambit of the Rules. The contention has no substance and it must be rejected.
Download Railway Board Circular RBE No. 302/1989
Forward reference ⇒ RBE No.