NYADAR SINGH & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 546 · Decided: 23-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
NYADAR SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.) 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1966: Rule ll(vi)-Government servant-Directly recruited to a par-
ticular post-Whether can be reduced to a post lower in rank to the one 
that he was directly recruited. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311(2)-'Reduction in 
rank'-Whether a government servant by way of punishment/penalty 
can be reduced in rank to a post lower than that to which he was 
recruited directly-All reversions from higher post are not necessarily 
reduction in rank. 
. 
· 
· 
Statutory Interpretation: Consequences do not alter statutory 
language-They only help to fix its meaning. 
Pursuant to separate discipliuary proceedings the penalty of 
R 'reduction in rank' was imposed on the appellants, Nyadar Singh and 
M.J. Ninama, reducing each of them to a post lower than the one to 
which they were directly recruited. 
The Central Administrative Tribunals rejected the appellants' 
challenge to the orders imposing the penalty. 
Before this Court, the appellants' contention was that as a result 
of the imposition of the penalty, they were reduced in rank to posts 
lower than the one to which they were initially recruited, which on a 
proper construction of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classilica-
tion, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 was not permissible. 
The Additional Solicitor General, on the other hand, contended 
that this limirotion which might be appropriate in the case of a 'rever-
sion', was inappropriate in a case of 'reduCtion in rank' imposed as a 
penalty. The argument was that 'reduction ill rank' had a wider import 
than 'reversion' and there was no reason why the power to impose this 
· H penalty which was permissible on the plain language of the· Rule, be 
whittled d~wn by any other consideration. 
54il 
( 
' 
NYADAR SINGH v. U.0.1. 
547 
Disposing of the appeals, it was, 
HELD: (1) The meaning to be given to a particular statutory 
language depends on the evaluation of a number of interpretative-
criteria. Shorn of the context, the words by. themselves are 'slippery 
customers'. The general presumption is that these criteria do not 
detract or stand apart from, but are to be harmonised with, the well 
accepted legal principles. Considerations relevant to interpretation are 
not whether a differently conceived or worded statute would have 
_yielded results more consonant with fairness and reasonableness. Con-
sequences do not alter the statutory language, but might only help to fix 
its meaning. [555H; 556A-B, G-H] 
(2) The expression 'rank', in 'reduction in rank' has, for pur-
poses of Article 311(2), an obvious'referen~e to the stratification of the 
posts or grades or categories in the official hierarchy. It does not refer 
to the mere seniority of the Government Servant in the same class or 
grade or category. [552B-C] 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
. (3) The penalty of 'reduction in rank' of a Gbvernment servant 
initially recruited to a higher time-scale, grade, service or post to a 
lower time-scale, grade, service or post virtually amounted to his 
removal from the higher post and the substitution of his recruitment to 
lower post, affecting the policy of recruitment itself. In conceivable 
cases, the Government servant might not have the qualification requi-
E 
site for the post which might require and involve different, though not 
necessarily higher, skills and attainment. [551B-C, 557G] 
· 
[Worthington v. Robin, [1896] 75 Law Times Reports 446, refer-
red to.] 
( 4) Rule 11 must he read in consonance with general principles 
and so construed the expression 'reduction' in it would not admit of a 
wider meaning. [557H; 558A] 
\ 
F 
Babaji Charan Rout v. State of Orissa, [1982] 1 SLJ 496; 
Shivalingaswamy v. State of Karna/aka, [1985] ILR ·Kar. ,1453; 
G 
_.approved. 
Gopal Rao V• C.J. T., [1976] 2 MLJ 508; Mahendra Kumar v. 
Union of India, [1984] l All India Ser. Law Journal 34; (1985) 1 SLR 1 
161; S.N. Dey v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SLJ All. 114; C.S. 
Balakumar v. The Inspecting Asst/. Commissioner of Income Tax, 
H 
SUPREME COUR.T REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A [ 1987] l All India SLJ 18, over-ruled. 
B 
a 
P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, 
[1979] 3 SLR 509 and Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaldgi v. State of 
Maharashtra, [1987] AIR SC 1627, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.