Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral)— The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the DPC recommendation dated 16.9.2009 had declared her as unfit for the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in respect of the panel year 2008-2009. The petitioner belongs to the Indian Postal Services of 1988 batch. It may be pointed out that in the year 2000-2001, the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in her scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect. We may also point out that the petitioner was on study leave for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. 2. The Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances, dismissed the petitioner's Original Application being O.A. No. 2724/2010 by virtue of the impugned order dated 22.9.2011. 3. The main plea which is being raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the year 2000-2001, the petitioner had been given the grading of "Very Good" by the reporting officer but, that grading was reduced to "Good" by the DPC while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this could not have been done by the DPC. Therefore, the ACR grading of "Very Good" for the year 2000-2001 ought to have been taken and if that were to be the case then the petitioner could not have been declared unfit inasmuch as she had received the grading "Very Good" in respect of the other years under consideration, namely, 2001-2002, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. We may point out, at this stage, that the years 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 were not within the purview for the purposes of considering the assessment of the petitioner inasmuch as she was on study leave and, in view of the DoPT O.M. dated 10.4.1989, these two years had to be excluded and the immediately preceding two years had to be taken into consideration. It is for this reason that years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were taken into consideration along with the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 by the DPC. 4. Now, the only question that requires consideration is as to whether the DPC could have downgraded the petitioner from "Very Good" to "Good" in respect of the year 2000-2001 for the purposes of considering her for promotion in the panel year 2008-2009. 5. 4. Now, the only question that requires consideration is as to whether the DPC could have downgraded the petitioner from "Very Good" to "Good" in respect of the year 2000-2001 for the purposes of considering her for promotion in the panel year 2008-2009. 5. In this regard, we find that there is a UPSC order dated 5.6.2008 which describes the methodology to be adopted for treatment of penalties in the DPC meeting held under the aegis of the UPSC. Paragraph 2 of the said order dated 5.6.2008 is relevant for our purposes and the same reads as under: "(2) Penalties of (a) "withholding of promotion" (b) "recovery from pay" © "reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect" (d) "withholding of increments from pay" (all minor penalties), (e) "reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period"; (f) "reduction to lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service" (major penalties). (i) If the penalty is awarded in the last assessment year or thereafter, the officer is made "Unfit" only once. That penalty is not considered thereafter. (ii) However, if the penalty is awarded before the last assessment year but within the assessment matrix, the grading for that year is lowered by one level. For example, if the grading is "Outstanding", it is reduced to "Very Good". Similarly, the "Very Good" is reduced to "Good" and "Good" to "Average". This is also given effect only once." (Underlining added) 6. It is apparent from a plain reading of the above quoted portion of the said order dated 5.6.2008 that it would be Clause (ii) thereof which would be applicable in the present case. Since penalty was awarded in the year 2000-2001 and that year fell within the assessment matrix, the grading in respect thereof had to be lowered by the DPC by one level. Since the petitioner had been given the grading of "Very Good" by the reporting officer, the DPC was bound to reduce it from "Very Good" to "Good". There is no doubt that this was to be given effect only once. Since the petitioner had been given the grading of "Very Good" by the reporting officer, the DPC was bound to reduce it from "Very Good" to "Good". There is no doubt that this was to be given effect only once. It would obviously not operate for the succeeding years, however, insofar as the panel year 2008-2009 is concerned, the DPC was duty bound, by virtue of the said order dated 5.6.2008, to reduce the grading from "Very Good" to "Good". Once that was done, the petitioner did not have five "Very Goods" in the ACRs in the five years which were under consideration. As such, the DPC declared her to be unfit. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in either the DPC decision declaring the petitioner to be "unfit" for SAG in the panel year 2008-2009 or in the Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's said Original Application. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.