Judgment :- Jagannadha Rao, CJ. The appellant was promoted as Head Constable on 14-8-1977, but was reverted for one year, as a matter of punishment in a disciplinary enquiry by order dated 1-4-1987. After undergoing the punishment, he was promoted again as Head Constable on 14-8-1988. The appellant, however, claims that his seniority as Head Constable is to be counted from 14-8-1977 and not from 14-4-1988. The appellant contends that notwithstanding the reversion to the lower post as a matter of punishment by order of the concerned authority dated 1-4-1987 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 14-8-1977 to 1-4-1987, and have treated him as Head Constable from 14-4-1988, the date on which he was promoted afresh after undergoing the punishment of reversion. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to rely upon the difference in language between R.15 of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958 on the one hand, and R.11(1)(v) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. According to him, while the Kerala Civil Services (CC & 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 counsel points out that under the Kerala Civil Services (CC & 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 consequences of different types of reduction. Sub-clause (3) of clause (v) of R.11(1) reads as follows: "An order of reduction toa lower post or to a lower time-scale shall entail loss of seniority." Learned counsel contends that there is no similar declaration 'as to the consequences of reduction to a lower post made in the Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules. 3. We are of the view that his contention that while the Kerala Civil Services (CC & a) Rules mention the consequences of different lypes 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. 3. We are of the view that his contention that while the Kerala Civil Services (CC & a) Rules mention the consequences of different lypes 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 R.27 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. We wanted the Iearned counsel for the appellant to look into this question, and he now fairly slates that according to him R.(1) of Part II of the K.S.&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 R.27 of the said Rules. R.27 reads as follows: "27. 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 R.27, in the Andhra Pradesh Stale and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962, namely, R.33(a ), came up for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in K.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of AP., A.I.R.1988 SC 887. 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 Lordships 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 1-4-1987, there has been interruption in the continuous service as Head Constable, the appellant cannot count his service as Head Constable prior to 1-4-1987, the date on which fie was reverted, and he can count his seniority only from 14-4-1988 being the date on which he was promoted as Head Constable afresh. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this Appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed.