P. V. SRINIVASA SASTRY AND ORS. versus COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 11-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P. V. SRINIVASA SASTRY AND ORS. 
v. 
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 1992 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 311(1)-"Shall be dismissed by an 
authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed''-Held, does riot 
include guarantee that disciplinary proceeding should be initiated only by 
appointing authority. 
Constitution of India-Article 311(2)-"Reduction in rank''-Held, can-
not be to a lower cadre to which he did not belong or to a lower rank which 
he did not hold at any stage. 
A 
B 
c 
P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and M. Mahadeva Setty were appointed as D 
Upper Division Clerks by direct recruitment in 1963. P. Gangireddy was 
initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk. They were working as 
Auditors in 1975. Departmental proceedings were initiated against them 
by the Senior Deputy Accountant General, for having withdrawn amounts 
in an illegal manner in connection with Leave Travel Concession. On 30th E 
January, 1976, final orders were passed reducing them in rank from 
Auditors to the posts of LDCs. 
The appellants contended that the disciplinary proceedings against 
them and the orders were vitiated as the proceedings were.initiated by the 
Senior Deputy Accountant General instead of the Accountant General who 
F 
was the appointing authority of the appellants. This, they maintained, was 
violative of the guarantee ensured to the holders of civil posts under the 
State in Article 311(1). They further contended that, in any case, while 
imposing the punishment of reduction in rank, the Accountant General 
could not have reverted them to posts below the rank of the posts to which G 
they had been appointed initially by process of direct recruitment. 
The High Court dismissed the writ applications. 
In the Supreme Court, on the question of relief, it was further 
represented that the punishment was imposed in January 1976; they had H 
503 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS l1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
been restored to the posts of Auditor with effect from February 1981; and 
they had suffered substantial monetary loss in the process of the rever-
sion. 
B 
c 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court 
HELD: 1. Departmental proceedings consist of several stages: the 
initiation of the proceedings, the inquiry, and the final order which is 
passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. [506-A] 
Article 311 (1) guarantees that no person who is a member of the 
Civil Service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an 
authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But it does not 
say that even the departmental proceeding must be initi~ted only by the 
appointing authority. [506-B] 
This additional safeguard may be provided by a rule made by the 
D Union of India or a State Government. But in the absence of any such rule, 
this right or guarantee does not Dow from Article 311 of the Constitution, 
and any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority 
can initiate such p~oceeding .. 506~D] 
E 
F 
State of M.P. v. Sltardul Singh, [1970] 1 SCC 108, relied on. 
Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence v. S. Daniel, [1990] 2 SCR 
440, distinguished. 
2. Reversion from a higher post to a lower post may be under 
exigencies of situation or by way of punishment. The expression "reducOon 
in rank" occurring in Article 311(2) covers only such reversions which are 
. by way of punishment. [508-A] 
An order imposing the punishment of reduction in rank must have 
a nexus with the post held by the delinquent officer concerned from which 
G he had been promoted to the post from which he is being reverted. He 
carinot be reverted to a lower cadre to which he did not belong or to a 
. lower rank which he did not hold at any stage. [508-D] 
Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, A.LR. 1988 S.C. 1979, followed. 
H 
.. 
P.V.S. SASTRY v. C.A.G. [N.P. SINGH, J.} 
505 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 464-466 A 
of 1982. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.80 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.A. ·Nos. 834 to 836 of 1979. 
M.S. Ganesh and R.P. Wadhwani for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N. P. SINGH, J, These appeals have been filed against the Orders 
passed by the High Court dismissing the writ applications, filed on behalf 
B 
of the three appellants, questioning the validity of their reversion from the C 
posts of Auditors to the posts of Lower Division Clerks. 
Appellants, P.V. Srinivasa Sas

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