Krishnan, K. vs State of Kerala and Others

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.—The Appellant was promoted as Head Constable on 14th August 1977, but was reverted for one year, as a matter of punishment in a disciplinary enquiry by order dated 1st April 1987. After undergoing the punishment, he was promoted again as Head Constable on 14th August 1988. The Appellant, however claims that his seniority as Head Constable is to be counted from 14th August 1977 and not from 14th April 1988. The Appellant contends that notwithstanding the reversion to the lower post as a matter of punishment by order of the concerned authority dated 1st April 1987 he does not lose his original seniority as Head Constable and that the authorities have omitted to take into consideration his seniority as Head Constable before the date of reversion, that is from 14th August 1977 to 1st April 1987, and have treated him as Head, Constable from 14th April 1988, the date on which he was promoted a fresh after undergoing the punishment of reversion.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has sought to rely upon the difference in language between Rule 15 of tht Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 on the one hand, and Rule 11(1)(v) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. According to him, while the Kerala Civil Services (C.C. and A.) Rules mention the consequences of reduction to a lower post specifically, there is no such- consequence of punishment specifically mentioned in the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, referred to above. Learned cou.nsel pOints out that under the Kerala Civil Services (C.C. and A.) Rules different kinds of reductions are there, namely, reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list, or to a lower grade or post or time-scale. The rules mention the conse quences of different type of reduction. Sub-clause (3) of clause (v) of rule 11(1) reads as follows:

An order of reduction to a lower post or to a lower time-scale shall entail loss of seniority.

Learned Counsel contends that there is no similar declaration as the consequences of reduction to a lower post made in the Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules.

We are of the view that his contention that while the Kerala Civil Service (C.C. and A.) Rules mention the consequences of different types of reduction, the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules do not mention anything as to the consequences of reduction to a lower post as a matter of punishment, is right. But a question arises as to whether the Appellant is not bound by the provisions relating to seniority in Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. We wanted the learned Counsel for the Appellant to look into this question, and he now fairly states that according to rule(1) of Part II of the K.S. and S.S.R., the said rules are applicable to the Appellant''s service also. If that be so, seniority has to be reckoned as per Rule 27 of the said Rules. Rule 27 reads as follows:

Seniority.- (a) Seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade.

The explanation below the rule is not relevant, and we are not referring to it. A rule, similar to Rule 27, in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962, namely, Rule 33(a), came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in K.V. Subba Rao and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, . In that decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that the words ''unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment'' are redundant and even without those words, the seniority has to be counted in service, class category or grade from the first date of "continuous" appointment. After referring to the Rule, their Lordship observed as follows:

...It is appropriate to interpret that rule to mean that the date of first appointment is intended to refer to continuous appointment only and the words ''unless he has been reduced to a Lower rank by way of punishment'' are really redundant....

Therefore in Rule 27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, treating the words ''unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment as redundant, the seniority has to be reckoned only on the basis of continuous service. Inasmuch as consequent to the reversion to a lower post as a matter of punishment by order dated 1st April 1987, there has been interruption in the continuous service as Head Constable, the Appellant cannot count his service as Head Constable prior to 1st April 1987, the date on which he was reverted, and he can count his seniority only from 14th April 1988 being the dace on which he was promoted as Head Constables a fresh.

For aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this Appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed.