JUDGMENT Bhaskaran, J. 1. The petitioner at the time of the filing of the writ petition was a Special Revenue Inspector. As per proceedings No. SI-12626/61, dated 17th July 1963 of the third respondent, the District Collector, Kozhikode, the petitioner was permanently reduced to the post of Lower Division Clerk, for certain irregularities and misconduct noticed while he was employed as Revenue Inspector, Sultan Battery. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent, the Board of Revenue, against the punishment inflicted on him by the third respondent. The second respondent having rejected the appeal petition in its proceedings No. LRE5-41033/66, dated 22nd February 1967, the petitioner submitted a petition to the Government for review of the orders of respondents 2 and 3. The first respondent, Government of Kerala, after having examined the matter, and after having consulted the Public Service Commission, rejected the review petition by the order, dated 15th April 1968. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a petition, dated 20th May 1968 praying that the orders of the Government, dated 15th April 1968, by which the review application was dismissed, may be revised. The first respondent, Government of Kerala, treating it as a mercy petition, and after consulting the Kerala Public Service Commission, modified the punishment of permanent reduction to temporary reduction for a period of five years on compassionate grounds, subject to the condition that consequent on the modification of the penalty the petitioner would not be entitled to back arrears and seniority over his erstwhile juniors who had by then become his seniors by virtue of promotion given to them after his permanent reduction. Ext. P-2 is the copy of letter dated 7th May 1975 received by the petitioner from the second respondent, rejecting his representation, dated 2nd April 1975, wherein he had pointed out that his promotion to the U.D. Grade had not been regularised under the Madras Ministerial Service Rules. Ext. P-3 is a copy of the order, dated 6th December 1975 of the second respondent, Board of Revenue, rejecting the request of the petitioner, dated 10th February 1975 that he may be temporarily promoted to the grade of Deputy Tahsildar. Ext. P-4 is the copy of the order of the third respondent, the Collector, dated 5th January 1977 by which the petitioner was informed that in Ext. Ext. P-4 is the copy of the order of the third respondent, the Collector, dated 5th January 1977 by which the petitioner was informed that in Ext. P-1 it had already been pointed out that the modification of the punishment from permanent reduction to temporary reduction was for a period of five years, and was also subject to the condition that he would not be entitled to back arrears and seniority over his erstwhile juniors who had become seniors by virtue of promotion after his permanent reduction had rendered him ineligible for promotion as Upper Division Clerk prior to 22nd July 1974, the date on which Ext. P-1 order was passed by the Government. Exts. P-1 and P-4 orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the facts disclosed subsequently show that a rather unmerited punishment was inflicted on the petitioner. He pointed out that the charge against the petitioner was that he had grossly undervalued two maruthu trees put up for sale by fixing their value at Rs. 502.67. Paradoxically, later in 1966, 15 trees, including the very same two maruthu trees, were valued and sold for a sum of Rs. 172 and the sale was confirmed also. No charge was then levelled against the officer concerned for valuing and selling the trees for that price. The counsel fairly conceded that that question could not be now reagitated, and it is only in an attempt to highlight the unfortunate position of the petitioner that this fact, which otherwise has no relevance to the issue now before the court, has been stated. 3. We have now to examine the correctness of Exts. P-1 and P-4 orders. The Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that, but for the fact that the petitioner's representation was treated as a mercy petition and the matter was reviewed on compassionate ground, the permanent reduction ordered by the Collector would have remained without being altered. He also submitted that the conditions like the period of temporary reduction, and the ineligibility for arrears of salary as well as refixation of seniority, form part and parcel of that integrated order which closed the disciplinary proceedings once for all, and there is no question of the petitioner accepting it in parts, without being prepared to take it as a whole. 4. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the policy of the Government had been to reduce the harshness of the punishment of permanent reduction, and in fact, the aim was to do away with it once for all. He drew my attention to G.O.Ms. No. 186/77 (G.A.D.) General Administration (D) Department, dated 15th June 1977 wherein the Government had given direction to review all cases wherein permanent reduction was ordered before the coming into force of the amendment to R.11(v) of the Kerala State Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules dated 5th June 1973 by G.O. (P) No. 108/ 73/PD., dated 23rd April 1973 published in the Kerala Gazette No. 23 dated 5th June 1973. Before that amendment the reductions were of two types: one permanent, and the other temporary. R.11(1)(v) says: "Reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower grade or post or time scale whether in the same service or in another service, State or Subordinate, or to a lower stage in a time scale; "Note:--(1) The reduction referred to may be either permanent or temporary for a specific period. (2) The temporary period of reduction shall be not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years. If the period is not specified in the order the period of reduction shall be deemed to be six months. * * * * * 5. So, the punishment that could have been awarded by the Collector when the charge levelled against the petitioner was found to have been proved, was reduction to the grade of Lower Division Clerk, either permanent or temporary. The government by Ext. P-1 order, for whatever reason it might have been, decided to modify the punishment of permanent reduction to that of temporary reduction. The temporary reduction, as per the modified order, could not have been a temporary reduction which could not have been awarded for the offence alleged when it was committed. The provision under which the punishment fell was clause (v) of sub-r.(1) of R.11 which provided that the temporary reduction will not be less than six months or more than two years. The amendment to R.9(1)(v) has not been given retrospective effect. The provision under which the punishment fell was clause (v) of sub-r.(1) of R.11 which provided that the temporary reduction will not be less than six months or more than two years. The amendment to R.9(1)(v) has not been given retrospective effect. I am, therefore, of the view that there is considerable force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that when the punishment of permanent reduction was taken away by the government, what remains there was only a temporary reduction which, as the rule stood during the material time, could not have exceeded 2 years, which was the maximum period prescribed under note 2 to clause (v) of sub-r.(1) of R.9. I find no legal basis in the argument that but for the fact that the petitioner's representation was treated as a mercy petition, and the punishment reduced on compassionate ground, the permanent reduction ordered would have remained, and therefore the petitioner is precluded from questioning the legality of the modified punishment ordered. Once the government decided to reduce the punishment from permanent to temporary reduction, that temporary reduction cannot exceed beyond the period permitted by the relevant rules. Even when the modification of the punishment is as result of the mercy shown, that cannot be a justification for fixing the punishment arbitrarily at something for which there is no provision in the relevant rules. 6. The next point raised is that the temporary reduction should relate to the period from the date on which it was to take effect, and when that period of punishment was over, the petitioner's claim for promotion ought to have been considered in his due turn, and the fact that his juniors were allowed to be promoted while the proceedings leading upto Ext. P-1 were kept pending, cannot take away the petitioner's statutory rights for being considered for promotion according to the relevant provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. The counsel also drew my attention to notes 3, 4 and 5 of clause (v) of sub-r.(1) of R.9 which read as follows: "(3) An order of reduction to a lower post or to a lower time scale shall entail loss of seniority. (4) An officer so reduced shall take his place in the lower grade or in the lower time scale at the top of the list of officers in that grade or time scale. (4) An officer so reduced shall take his place in the lower grade or in the lower time scale at the top of the list of officers in that grade or time scale. He shall be considered for promotion on the completion of the specified period of reduction. On promotion, he shall take his place at the bottom of the higher grade or higher time scale. (5) The previous service in the higher grade or time scale of a Government Servant who has been reduced to a lower post or lower time scale shall on repromotion to the higher grade or higher time scale count for increments, only subject to the provisions of R.36 of the Kerala Service Rule, Part I, etc." It follows that the maximum punishment imposed on the petitioner, namely, a penalty of temporary reduction of rank would have expired on 16th July 1965, and therefore, thereafter he should have been considered in the ordinary course for promotion, if otherwise, he was eligible. That has not been done so far, and the Collector took the view that the petitioner was bound by Ext. P-1 order whereby the reduction was for a period of 5 years, and it was also subject to certain conditions which included the deprival of the claim of the petitioner for promotion over his juniors who had been in the meanwhile promoted to the higher grade. Once we accept the position that the petitioner was not liable to be reduced in rank by way of temporary reduction for a period exceeding 2 years, and that period expired on 15th July 1965, what follows is that the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion in the vacancies that subsequently arose along with the others who are eligible for such promotion. 7. What emerges from the discussion above is that punishment imposed, call it light or harsh, could be only in accordance with the provisions governing it; in the absence of any specific law to the contrary, the provision that governs is the one which was applicable when the misconduct was committed; and as for temporary reduction, once the period of reduction is over, the government officer becomes eligible for consideration to promotion to the higher grade in the next vacancy that arises. For the foregoing reasons Ext. P-4 order of the third respondent and Ext. For the foregoing reasons Ext. P-4 order of the third respondent and Ext. P-1 order of the first respondent to the extent objected to by the petitioner arc hereby quashed. The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's claim for promotion to the pose of U.D. Clerk for which vacancy aroses after 16th July 1965, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. This Original Petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.