JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. These writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are by different employees under the Southern Naval Command. Since the disputes relating to all of them qua the establishment were based on a particular question of law, which tilts the scales either way, the Central Administrative Tribunal heard the original applications of all the petitioners in a consolidated manner and issued a common order. We also adopt the same procedure of consolidation for hearing, having regard to the facts, which we note hereunder. 2. All the employees involved in this bunch of litigations were imposed with penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for one year in the relevant scale of pay in respect to each of them and with a direction that the incumbent concerned will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of that period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. The effect of that penalty operated from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007. 3. Later, in 2008, the pay scales were revised with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. The establishment then took the view that whatever they might have suffered till 31.12.2007, the incumbents are liable to suffer further reduction from the payments at par with the rates to which the scales of pay stood enhanced by the revision made in 2008 with effect from 1.1.2006. Consequential proposals for recovery were also ordered. At the instance of the employees, the Tribunal upheld their plea that there cannot be any recovery without any predecisional opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the second limb of their prayers before the Tribunal stood granted. However, the Tribunal did not come to the aid of the employees to uphold their plea that they were not liable to be visited with any further reduction of money from out of their emoluments on a ground referable to the penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for one year in the relevant scale of pay which had operated from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007. Hence, these writ petitions by the employees under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Adv.John T. Paul, representing the Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the establishment, quite in extenso, on the different aspects of the matter. 5. Hence, these writ petitions by the employees under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Adv.John T. Paul, representing the Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the establishment, quite in extenso, on the different aspects of the matter. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued, among other things, that the employees had suffered the entire penalty much before the revision of pay scales which, actually, came into force only in 2008 though with effect from 1.1.2006. He accordingly argued that there was nothing left, for the incumbents to be forced to suffer further on a penalty which was imposed and suffered. 6. Per contra, it is argued by Adv. John T. Paul, representing on behalf of establishment, that the impact of reduction of pay by one stage would essentially have its continued impact whenever the scales of pay are revised with effect from a date prior to the date of imposition and sufferance of penalty. He, accordingly, pointed out that the learned Tribunal was justified in concluding that the incumbents were not entitled to claim that once penalty has been suffered there is no scope of modification of the same. 7. While the establishment may be justified in contending that there is no question of modification of the penalty, the fact of the matter remains that the penalty imposed was not one with cumulative effect. It was a penalty simplicitor and one falling within Fundamental Rule 29.(1) among the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (F.R.S.R). That being so, the imposition and sufferance from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007, that is, for a period of one year, had purged the incumbents of any indiscipline for which they were ordered to suffer the penalty. Such sufferance of penalty results in the indiscipline being purged and there was no continuing effect of the penalty order, which had dissolved by the last point of its sufferance, except to evidence that there was such an incident of imposition of that penalty. Such sufferance of penalty results in the indiscipline being purged and there was no continuing effect of the penalty order, which had dissolved by the last point of its sufferance, except to evidence that there was such an incident of imposition of that penalty. Now, looking at the different orders of Government of India on different issues raised under F.R. 29.(1), we see that in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, O.M.No.F.2(34)-E.III/59, dated the 17th August, 1959 and the 9th June, 1960, it has been clearly stated even by the Government that it should be noted that reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale is not permissible under the rules either for an unspecified period or as a permanent measure. Therefore, the reduction to a lower stage in a time scale is a temporary measure and it gets activated the moment reduction starts affecting the drawals of the incumbent concerned. That measure ends by efflux of time upon the termination of the period for which such measure was imposed as a minor penalty for a particular count of indiscipline. Therefore, in terms of the clear provisions of F.R.29. (1) and looking at Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, we cannot but hold that reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale gets diffused by efflux of time and discharged by sufferance. 8. Applying the aforenoted principle to the facts of this case, it is clear that as on 31.12.2007, the petitioners before us stood discharged of the count of indiscipline and had exhausted the sufferance of the penalty imposed on them; that temporary measure having been indisputably enforced by making the reductions in pay one stage for one year and by operating the non-enjoyment of any increment during that period. Therefore, when pay revision was brought in 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006, that had nothing to do with the sufferance already imposed and suffered and hence, the petitioners were entitled, in law, to an order that the penalty orders of reduction of pay by one stage for one year dealt with in the original applications had no impact whatsoever on the revision of pay scales. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. 9. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If recovery from pay is ordered based on the pay revision orders issued in 2008, which came into force with effect from 1.1.2006, for the reason that the employees received enhanced pay and allowances for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007, it would be like imposing another penalty on the employees, which was not imposed by the disciplinary authority when the penalty was originally imposed. If the disciplinary authority wanted to reduce more amount by way of imposing penalty for indiscipline, that authority could have imposed the same at the time of imposing the penalty. But, the disciplinary authority did not think of imposing the reduction of that much amount as now attempted to be reduced from pay and allowances of the employee on the ground that their pay and allowances had been enhanced during the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007 based on the pay revision orders which came into force with effect from 1.1.2006. If such a recovery is effected, it would amount to imposing a second penalty without any disciplinary action affecting the employees as double jeopardy. This will only be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The attempt of the establishment to effect such recovery from the employees will only be an abuse of power without any rhyme or reason whatsoever, much less for any indiscipline. For that reason also, employees are to succeed in these writ petitions. In the result, we set aside the findings and the consequential refusal of relief in paragraph 21.(a) of the impugned order and declare that the petitioners are entitled to such relief. Annexures A-5 and A-10 in all the original applications before the Tribunal, from which these writ petitions arise, are quashed. Writ petitions are so allowed. No costs.