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

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

Article 311(1) does not guarantee that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated only by the appointing authority unless there is a specific rule to such effect; superior controlling authorities may initiate proceedings. Reduction in rank as a disciplinary punishment under Article 311(2) can only revert an employee to a post or cadre previously held, not to a rank or post never held. Orders of reduction that violate this principle are invalid.

Parties
Appellant: P.V. Srinivasa Sastry; Appellant: M. Mahadeva Setty; Appellant: P. Gangireddy; Respondent: Comptroller and Auditor General
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment in Writ Applications
Outcome
Appeal allowed partly for two appellants, dismissed for one
Legal Topics
Article 311 Disciplinary Proceedings, Reduction in Rank, Departmental Proceedings Initiation, Civil Services
Constitutional Law Service Law Article 311 Disciplinary Proceedings Reduction in Rank Departmental Proceedings Initiation Civil Services

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.V. Srinivasa Sastry

Appellant

M. Mahadeva Setty

Appellant

P. Gangireddy

Appellant

Comptroller and Auditor General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Judgment in Writ Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 311(1) guarantee that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated only by the appointing authority?
  2. 2 Can an order of reduction in rank under Article 311(2) revert a civil servant to a cadre or rank never held?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 311(1) does not guarantee that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated only by the appointing authority unless there is a specific rule to such effect; superior controlling authorities may initiate proceedings. Reduction in rank as a disciplinary punishment under Article 311(2) can only revert an employee to a post or cadre previously held, not to a rank or post never held. Orders of reduction that violate this principle are invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed partly for two appellants, dismissed for one

Orders

  • Orders of reduction in rank passed against appellants P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and M. Mahadeva Setty quashed; they will not be entitled to any monetary compensation for the period of holding the post of Lower Division Clerk; deemed to be holding post of Auditor throughout for purpose of seniority and benefits.
  • Appeal of P. Gangireddy dismissed; no order as to costs.