VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

624 DECISION - 303
explanation why the confirmation of the appellant was deferred till 1-
12-69. The Supreme Court did not accept the contention of the Board
that the confirmation of the appellant and the others was taken up
after the substantive posts had fallen vacant on 1-4-69 and held that
the vacancies had occurred before that day, but the Board did not
care to take up the question of confirmation for reasons best known
to it. The Supreme Court directed that a fresh seniority list shall be
prepared refixing the seniority accordingly.
(303)
Reversion/reduction — of direct recruit
Reduction in rank of an employee initially recruited
to a higher time-scale, grade or service or post to a
lower time-scale, grade, service or post, not
permissible. It tantamounts to removal from the post
against which he was initially recruited and
substitution of his recruitment to a lower post. Power
to reduce in rank by way of penalty can only be
exercised in respect of those employees who were
appointed by promotion to a higher post, service,
grade, time-scale.
Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India,
N.J. Ninama vs. Post Master General, Gujarat,
1988(4) SLR SC 271
The judgment covers a special leave petition and an appeal
by 2 Central Government servants. In the Special Leave Petition,
Nyadar Singh was imposed a penalty of reduction in rank, reducing
him from the post of Assistant Locust Warning Officer to which he
was recruited directly on 31-10-60 and confirmed on 27-12-71 to
that of Junior Technical Assistant pursuant to certain disciplinary
proceedings held against him. In the Civil Appeal, M.J. Ninama, an
Upper Division Clerk in the Post and Telegraph Circle Office,