JUDGMENT J. P. MISHRA, J. : The petitioner in both the writ peti¬tions has challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution to the order under Annexures-7 and 13 for reduction of his rank from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with other punishments passed by his disciplinary authority. He has also placed his grievance for inaction of the opp.parties as he was not given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant against after his demo¬tion. 2. The petitioner was selected by the committee of Uni¬versity of Agriculture and Technology and was appointed directly as Senior Clerk. He joined the same post on 14.8.1970. During his incumbency as Senior Asst. (Accountant-cum-Head Clerk) in the College of Agriculture and Regional Research Station, O.U.A.T. at Chiplima, he was placed under suspension on 23.7.1984 pending the disciplinary proceeding vide order No.1820 dated 23.7.1984 for gross negligence in duty and misappropriation of University money to the tune of Rs.18,878.89 p. (Annexure-1). An FIR (Annexure-2) was also lodged for the incident. The preliminary report was drawn up vide Annexure-3. The petitioner answered the charges. on 4.11.1984 vide Annexure-4. The enquiry was concluded and resulted in stoppage of his two increments with cumulative effect and recovery. On 26.9.1987, opp.parties issued second show cause notice (Annexure-5) to the petitioner proposing reduction of his rank from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with recov¬ery of the amount misappropriated. The petitioner submitted his explanation (Annexure-6) that he was not supplied with the en¬quiry report of the Enquiring Officer and the authority cannot differ from the recommendation of the Enquiring Officer proposing higher punishment as he was initially appointed as Senior Assis¬tant. But, the same did not yield any result in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, punishment was inflicted under Annex¬ure-7 by reducing in rank from the post of Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant along with recovery of the amount misappropriat¬ed treating the period of suspension as such. After communication of the order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 116(2) (b) of the Statute of O.U.A.T. before the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology through proper channel on 11.12.1987 pleading to exonerate him from all the charges, and punishment including reduction of rank. After communication of the order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Rule 116(2) (b) of the Statute of O.U.A.T. before the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology through proper channel on 11.12.1987 pleading to exonerate him from all the charges, and punishment including reduction of rank. Though initially the authority remained cal¬lous in disposing the appeal, but only after the order of this Court in O.J.C. No.3506 of 1990 (Annexure-12), the authority dismissed his appeal vide Annexure-14) under Rule 117 (1) of the Statute of O.U.A.T. In spite of the assurance by the Vice Chan¬cellor, Mr I.C. Mohapatra, and the reminders, the petitioner’s grievance was not attended to for which he was challenged the Annexure-7 and 13 on the ground that the disciplinary authority cannot differ in regard to punishment suggested by the Enquiring Officer and impose a higher punishment without assigning any reason, violation of natural justice for non-supply of documents and the punishment for reduction in rank from initial appointment to be wrong. 3. The O.U.A.T. authority filed counter affidavit to the writ petition asserting punishment under Annexure-7 and 13 to be valid and the disciplinary authority under Rule 112 (vi) of the O.U.A.T. Statute, 1996 has rightly inflicted the punishment considering its gravity. It is also mentioned in the counter that documents were supplied to the petitioner. According to the opp.parties, the writ application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed having no substance in the plea. 4. Mr. R. B. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner criticized the order of punishment (Annexure-7 & 13) on the ground of non-supply of document, incapacity of the disciplinary authority to differ from the suggestion recommended by the Enquiring Officer along with the reduction of rank relying on O.J.C. No.476 of 1987 (Dr. Dukhishyam Acharya v. O.U.A.T. & others) disposed of on 21.7.1987 and in Babaji Charan Rout v. State of Orissa & others, 53 (1982) CLT 102. In reply, learned counsel for the opp.parties Mr. Mishra and Mr. G.A.R. Dora have supported the order of the authorities. According to them, the disciplinary authority can very well inflict a punishment other than the punishment recommended by the Enquiring Officer accord¬ing to the Statute 112 (vi) of the statute of O.U.A.T. The puni¬shment has been inflicted under the Statute of O.U.A.T., which shall be called as ‘Statute’ hereinafter. 5. G.A.R. Dora have supported the order of the authorities. According to them, the disciplinary authority can very well inflict a punishment other than the punishment recommended by the Enquiring Officer accord¬ing to the Statute 112 (vi) of the statute of O.U.A.T. The puni¬shment has been inflicted under the Statute of O.U.A.T., which shall be called as ‘Statute’ hereinafter. 5. Charges were framed under Annexure-1 alleging misappropriation and gross negligence. The petitioner did not raise the ground of non-supply of documents before the Enquiring Officer. After the submission of the report by the Enquiring Officer on 24.7.1987 finding the petitioner to be guilty and recommending punishment, the petitioner was issued second show-cause notice vide Annexure-5 dt. 26.9.1987. In the said Annexure, the disciplinary authority concurred in the findings of the Enquiring Officer and inflicted the punishment under Annexure-7. The petitioner replied to the second show cause notice in Annex¬ure-6, but no plea of non-supply of document was taken therein. It is only after the inflictment of punishment the petitioner raised the plea of non-supply of documents in his appeal memo (Annexure-8). Therefore, the petitioner is not permitted to take such a plea subsequent to the infliction of punishment pursuant to the second show-cause notice. So the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails. 6. The operative portion of the order of the Enquiring Officer reads as follows : “16. There are nine punishments in Statute 112, any one or more of which can be awarded to the delinquent. Recovery of the loss to the University from pay of the employee is one of those punishments which has to be awarded to the delinquent to make good the loss he caused to the University. In addition to it, two of his increments may be withheld with cumulative effect and he should not be placed in charge of cash at any time in future. In view of his young age, the negligence of the Special Officer in connection with the daily checking of cash books which would have prevented the misappropriation and the failure of the charge relating to college fees, the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement or removal from service or dismissal from service is not recommended. In view of his young age, the negligence of the Special Officer in connection with the daily checking of cash books which would have prevented the misappropriation and the failure of the charge relating to college fees, the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement or removal from service or dismissal from service is not recommended. In awarding punishment the provisions of Statute 114 will have to be adhered to “ The learned Enquiring Officer has specifically mentioned regarding the nine punishments as per Statute 112 of the Statute of O.U.A.T. We may quote the said provisions below : “112. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a University employee, namely :- (i) fine; (ii) censure; (iii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iv) recovery from pay of the while or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or breach of orders. (v) suspension; (vi) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower pay scale or to a lower stage in a pay scale; (vii) compulsory retirement ; (viii) removal from service, which shall not disqualify for future employment under the University ; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily disqualify for future employment under the University. (v) suspension; (vi) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower pay scale or to a lower stage in a pay scale; (vii) compulsory retirement ; (viii) removal from service, which shall not disqualify for future employment under the University ; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily disqualify for future employment under the University. Explanation:- The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this statute ;- (a) withholding of increments of a University employer for failure to pass a departmental examination, if any, in accordance with the relevant provisions or orders governing the service or post or terms of his appointment; (b) stoppage of a University employee at the deficiency bar in the pay scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar ; (c) non-promotion, whether in substantive or officiating capacity of a University employees, after consideration of his case, to a grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible ; (d) reversion to a lower service, grade or post of a University employee officiating in a higher service, grade or post on the ground that he is considered, after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post, or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct ; (e) reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of a University employee appointed on probation to another service, a grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the term of his appointment or the statutes and orders governing probation ; (f) replacement of the services of a University employee whose services have been borrowed from the Central or a State Govern¬ment or an authority under the control of the Central or a State Government at the disposal of the Government or authority which had lent his services ; (g) compulsory retirement of a University employee in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement; (h) termination of the services- (i) of a University employee appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the statutes and orders governing proba¬tion; or (ii) of a temporary University employee in accordance with the terms of his appointment ; or (iii) of a University employee employed under an agreement in accordance with the terms of such agreement”. 7. Admittedly, the Enquiring Officer has got no power to inflict any punishment on the delinquent. But certainly can recommend a punishment which may or may not be accepted by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid quoted paragraph of the operative portion of the report of Enquiring Officer reveals sympathy in a case of mis-appropriation which the disciplinary authority did not accept and inflicted the punishment of reduc¬tion of his rank under 112 (vi) of the Statute. Therefore it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority was incompetent to do so keeping in mind the gravity of the delinquency, but the question remains regarding the permissibility of reduction of rank from the initial appointment. 8. Adverting to the last contention, the position of law has been enumerated in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the opp.parties in O.J.C. No.476 of 1987 disposed of on 21.7.1987 In the said case, it has been held by this Court that a person who has been recruited to a particular post through direct recruitment cannot, either as a punishment or for administrative exigencies be reverted to a lower post than that. The matter was raised by a junior breeder of O.U.A.T. The learned counsel has also pressed the source of the decision reported in the case of Babaji Charan Rout v. State of Orissa and others, 53 (1982) C.L.T. 102, wherein this Court has held as under : “3. There is no dispute that the petitioner’s first appoint¬ment was to the grade of Revenue Inspector. The punishment admit¬tedly reduced him to a lower rank than the original appointment. A Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in the case of Santosh Kumar Panda v. State of Orissa & others, took the view that the punishment imposable in a disciplinary action could not be of reversion to a rank lower than the initial recruitment itself. The State Government accepted the decision of this Court and implemented it. We see no justification to take a different view in the instant case. The second contention raised by the petitioner must accordingly succeed”. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court of the country is also of the same view in the case of P.V. Srinivasa Sastry & Ors. V. Comp¬troller & Auditor General & Ors., 1993 (I) SLR 25. The relevant paragraph is quoted below : “7. The second contention raised by the petitioner must accordingly succeed”. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court of the country is also of the same view in the case of P.V. Srinivasa Sastry & Ors. V. Comp¬troller & Auditor General & Ors., 1993 (I) SLR 25. The relevant paragraph is quoted below : “7. So far the facts of the present case is concerned a very anomalous situation has arisen. The two appellants as already stated above had been appointed by process of direct recruitment to the posts of Upper Division Clerk which posts have been re-designated as Auditor. Admittedly, they did not hold at any stage the posts of Lower Division Clerk. In this background, it was not open to the Disciplinary authority to pass an order of reduction in rank reverting them to the posts of Lower Division Clerk. Normally, we would have quashed the order of punishment imposed against them and directed the Disciplinary Authority to apply his mind afresh on the question of imposing a penalty against the appellants afresh. But it appears that the punishment was im¬posed as early as in January, 1976 and it has been stated that they have been restored to the posts of Auditor w.e.f. 1st Febru¬ary, 1981 after expiry of period of five years. It has also been pointed that in process of the aforesaid reversion to the posts of Lower Division Clerk, they have suffered monetary loss which runs into several thousand rupees. Mr. Ganesh, the learned coun¬sel, suggested that instead of directing the Disciplinary Author¬ity to consider the question afresh in respect of imposition of the punishment if the order of reversion is quashed, no conse¬quential direction be given regarding payment of any amount which the said appellants will be entitled. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that orders of reduction in rank passed against the appellants, P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and M. Mahadeva Setty, are quashed. However, we make it clear that the said appellants shall not be entitled to claim any amount as monetary loss for the period they were holding the posts of Lower Division Clerk as a result of the impugned order. They will be deemed to be holding the posts of Auditor throughout for purpose of their seniority and other benefits.” 10. However, we make it clear that the said appellants shall not be entitled to claim any amount as monetary loss for the period they were holding the posts of Lower Division Clerk as a result of the impugned order. They will be deemed to be holding the posts of Auditor throughout for purpose of their seniority and other benefits.” 10. In the present case, the opp.parties have no where disputed that the petitioner was not appointed as Senior Assis¬tant in a direct recruitment test. In view of the above position of law the petitioner could not have been reverted by the authori¬ties to a post lower than the initial post of Senior Assistant and, therefore, the third contention raised by the learned coun¬sel succeeds. 11. In the result, the order of reversion of the petitioner to the lower rank of Junior Assistant is hereby quashed but all other punishments inflicted by the authorities remains undis¬turbed. The petitioner be considered as a Senior Assistant from the date of his reinstatement i.e. 16.10.1987. But the disciplin¬ary authority are at liberty to inflict any other punishment in lieu of reversion if they consider the punishment to be inade¬quate. We make it clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any amount as monetary loss for the period he was hold¬ing the post of Junior Assistant as a result of the impugned order. He will be deemed to be holding the post of Senior Assis¬tant throughout (except the period of suspension) for the purpose of his seniority and other benefits subject to further punishment if awarded by the authorities in lieu of reversion. 12. In view of the above, no specific order need be passed in the other writ application No.12976 of 1999 which is dismissed being infructuous. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.