Judgment :- Per K. A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Petitioner is a driver in the service of the first respondent. He challenges Exts. P12 and P14. Ext. P12 is the report of the disciplinary enquiry held against the petitioner. Ext. P14 is the order imposing a penalty of reduction in rank based on the findings contained in Ext. P12. In the normal course I would not have entertained this Original Petition as the petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal as provided in the service rules and also because the petitioner is a workmen, who can raise an Industrial Dispute on the matter. But the petitioner has got a contention with regard to the extreme unreasonableness in Ext. P14 order and the jurisdictional aspects as well. The Service rules provide for major penalties including "reduction to a lower grade or post or to a lower stage in a time scale". The petitioner was recruited directly as a Driver Grade IV. He is at present working as Driver Grade V. By imposing a penalty of "reduction to a lower grade/post" by Ext. P14, he is reverted to the post of Driver Grade III. In between there is a post of Driver Grade IV. These are admitted facts. Reduction can be only to a lower grade/post. It cannot be to any lower grade/post. It is widely understood in service law while imposing penalty of reduction in rank, that it shall be to the next post below. On that ground, the penalty imposed on the petitioner as per Ext. P14 is not in consonance with the penalty permissible in terms of the service rules. The permissible penalty is to reduce him to the next lower grade. So the penalty now imposed as per Ext. P14 is extremely arbitrary and unreasonable and not permissible by law. The authority which passed Ext. P14 does not have jurisdiction to impose such a penalty.It is contended by counsel for the first respondent that because of the conciliation settlement with the workmen, the grades of drivers were re-arranged and presently the direct recruitment post is grade 1. When the petitioner was holding a post of Driver Grade V, there arise no situation to reduce him as Driver Grade III bypassing the post of Driver Grade IV. Therefore such contention cannot be accepted. There is another aspect as well. When the petitioner was holding a post of Driver Grade V, there arise no situation to reduce him as Driver Grade III bypassing the post of Driver Grade IV. Therefore such contention cannot be accepted. There is another aspect as well. Penalty of reduction to a lower post cannot be made to a post lower than the one to which the delinquent was directly recruited. Admittedly the petitioner was directly recruited as Driver Grade IV. Now he is working as Driver Grade V. He is reduced to Driver Grade III. In Nyadar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 1988 II CLR 448 S.C. it has been made clear that the penalty of reduction to a lower post/rank cannot be to a post lower than to which he was originally recruited. Ext. P14 is bad on that reason as well. Therefore I quash Ext. P14, of course with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with the service rules. I am not considering any other contentions raised by the petitioner, which are left open. The original Petition is disposed of as above.