HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13942 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (for short 'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 220 of 2010 whereby the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the respondent has been allowed and the impugned orders dated 30.12.2003, 29.07.2009 and 25.04.2011 have been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to extend all the consequential benefits to the respondent during service period treating him in service till his superannuation. 2. The matter has a chequered history, the original applicant before the Tribunal was appointed to a clerical position on 25.05.1979. He was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry resulting in his reversion to a lower cadre for five years and a pay reduction by five stages. His appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 23.06.1988 was dismissed by the appellate authority on 13.01.1989 and the memorial representation submitted by the respondent was decided on 15.08.1989. 3. The respondent filed O.A. No. 991 of 1989. The O.A. was decided in favour of the respondent on 29.09.1995 setting aside the orders impugned and directing the disciplinary authority to pass an order in conformity with the ratio decidendi of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India : (1988) 4 SCC 170, pursuant to which the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of reduction of one stage of pay from Rs.5000/- to Rs.4900/- for a period of four years during which no increment was to be earned and without cumulative effect. 4. The respondent preferred appeal, which was disposed of by the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kaushlesh Pratap Singh Union of India and 5 Others .....Petitioner(s) G.P. Jaiswal and 5 Others .....Respondent(s) appellate authority by order dated 28.02.2008 enhancing the punishment so imposed by the disciplinary authority to that of recovery of Rs.15300/- at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month in 10 installments and remaining Rs.300/- in the last installment from the pay of the respondent with punishment already imposed by order dated 30.12.2003. 5. The respondent filed O.A. No. 432 of 2009 against the appellate order. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order dated 28.02.2008 by its order dated 28.04.2009 and directed the respondent to prefer additional appeal within two weeks and further ordered the appellate authority to consider and decide the same afresh by issuing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. The appellate authority issued show cause notice for enhancement of punishment to that of removal from service and ultimately passed the order dated 29.07.2009 enhancing the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority to that of removal from service. The revisional authority dismissed the revision of the respondent on 25.04.2011. The O.A. was filed seeking setting aside of orders dated 30.12.2003, 29.07.2009 and 25.04.2011. 7. The challenge laid was based on the directions issued by the Tribunal while deciding O.A. No. 991 of 1989 decided on 29.09.1995 requiring the disciplinary authority to pass an order in conformity with the ratio decidendi of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Nyadar Singh (supra). It was submitted that in terms of the said judgement, no punishment could have been imposed and in any case passing of order of removal from service was wholly unjustified. The submissions made were contested by the petitioners. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the directions by the Tribunal were very clear and specific and in view of the decision in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra), the punishment could not be imposed and passed the order as noticed hereinbefore. 8. Counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the order impugned. Submissions were made that while quashing the previous penalty order of reversion to a lower grade for five years and pay reduction by five stages, it was left open for the petitioners to proceed afresh and once the disciplinary authority imposed a fresh punishment against which appeal was filed by the respondent and the appellate authority deemed it appropriate to issue notice for WRIA No. 13942 of 2025 2 enhancement of punishment, the same cannot be faulted. Submissions have been made that looking to the nature of allegations, the punishment of removal from service imposed by the petitioners cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved. 9. Further submissions have been made that once the order of reversion was set aside, though the respondent had already served punishment before the matter could be decided by the Tribunal, after the order is passed by the Tribunal, the difference of pay on account of imposition of punishment was paid to the respondent and, therefore, the respondent cannot have it both ways. As it relates to difference in pay and the implementation of order passed in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra) wherein it was specifically provided that difference in salary was not payable and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the case of the respondent was squarely covered by the facts situation in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra) and therefore, no other punishment could be imposed and the petitioners were required to only follow directions as given in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra) which was not done and in an absolutely high-handed manner, enhanced punishment so imposed to the extent of removal from service which is wholly unjustified and against the law and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 11. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The Tribunal in its order dated 29.09.1995 while deciding O.A. No. 991 of 1989, passed the following directions: “We, therefore, quash the orders of disciplinary Authority dated 23.06.88, the appellate authority dated 13.01.89 and the authority which decided the memorial by its order dated 15.08.89 and direct the disciplinary authority to pass an order in conformity with the ratio decidendi of judgement of the Supreme Court in Nyadar Singh Vs. Union of India and other (Supra)”. 13. A perusal of the order would reveal that the Tribunal, instead of passing the order as a consequence of setting aside of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, directed the disciplinary authority to pass an order in conformity with the ratio decidendi of the judgement in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra). WRIA No. 13942 of 2025 3 14. In the case of Nyadar Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case, where a delinquent employee was reverted to a post lower than the post on which he was recruited and the Hon’ble Court on coming to the conclusion that such order was bad in law, while considering the issue of grant of relief, had observed/directed as under: “[12] The point now is as to what orders are to be made in these appeals. Appellants in the two appeals have been reduced to posts lower than these to which they were initially directly recruited. As these penalties cannot be sustained in the view we take of the rule, in the normal course the penalties imposed would require to be set aside and the disciplinary authority directed to re-consider which other penalty which it would now choose to impose. But, we are of the opinion that it would be somewhat unfair that at this distance of time the matters are re-opened. We think, having regard to all the circumstances of the cases the orders that commend themselves appropriate in the two cases are in terms following: (i) In the first of the appeals, appellant-Nyadar Singh, has, after the period of the reduction in rank has spent itself out, been restored to the original position. It would, therefore, be sufficient to set aside the penalty imposed on him and direct that the period of service in the reduced post be treated as service in the post held by him prior to imposition of the penalty, subject to the condition, however, that the appellant shall not be entitled to any difference of salary for and during the period of reduction. In view of this, we think that the proceedings taken against him should come to an end and there is no need to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for selection and imposition of a fresh penalty. (ii) In the case of M.J. Ninama the penalty of reduction in rank is set aside and he shall be restored to the post which he held before the imposition of the penalty. However, for the period, if any, served by him in the lower post pursuant to the penalty imposed on him, he shall not be entitled to the difference of salary. It will also not be necessary to remit his case for fresh consideration of the choice of the penalty having regard to the lapse of time.” 15. It would be seen that the Court, noticing the fact that the employee, after the period of the reduction in rank, has spent itself out, directed his restoration to the original position and observed that it would be sufficient to set aside the penalty imposed on him and directed that the period of service in the reduced post be treated as service in the post held by him prior to imposition of the penalty. The Hon’ble Court imposed the condition that the employee shall not be entitled to any difference of salary for and during the period of reduction and that the proceedings taken against the employee should come to an end and there was no need to impose a fresh penalty. 16. Once the direction given by the Tribunal in its order dated 29.09.1995 WRIA No. 13942 of 2025 4 was clear and specific requiring passing of order in conformity with the judgement in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had issued directions as noticed hereinbefore, there was no option left with the petitioners except to pass order similar to what was ordered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 17. The action of imposing a fresh penalty by the disciplinary authority and enhancing the same by the appellate authority to the extent of removal from service being ex facie contrary to the judgement in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra), cannot be countenanced. The order passed by the Tribunal by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted on any count. 18. However, we make it clear that the petitioners would be entitled to adjust the amount paid contrary to the directions in the case of Nyadar Singh (supra) from the benefits payable to the legal representatives of the deceased employee. 19. Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. September 17, 2025 RK WRIA No. 13942 of 2025 5 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad