Judgment 1. The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition, challenging the orders of the respondent, dated 28.08.2008, in and by which, for the proved charges, the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of reduction from the post of Record Clerk to the post of Office Assistant. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Record Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District in Tamil Nadu Commercial Taxes Department by the Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Tirunelveli by proceedings, dated 4.11.1989. A charge memo, dated 3.10.2000 was issued her while she was working at Puliyarai Checkpost, alleging that she had connived with other officials in the Checkpost in allowing the vehicles carrying bone meals to pass through the Checkpost without making entries in the Movement Register to Kerala State during the period from June 1999 to January 2000 and thus paved the dealers to evade tax. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and after conducting enquiry, she was imposed with the punishment of reduction from the post of Record Clerk to the post of Office Assistant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner has committed the serious misconduct having allowed the vehicles carrying bone meals by omitting 224 entries in the Movement Register, resulting in tax evasion by the bone meal traders and during the enquiry, the same has been proved. Hence, for the proved grave charges, after following due procedure, on humanitarian grounds, the respondent has taken a lenient view by only imposing punishment of reverting her to the lower post of Office Assistant though the matter deserved imposing of the extreme punishment of removal. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been directly recruited to the post of Record Clerk in the year 1989 by proceedings dated 4.11.1989 of the Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Tirunelveli. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been directly recruited to the post of Record Clerk in the year 1989 by proceedings dated 4.11.1989 of the Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Tirunelveli. It is to be noted that for the proved serious misconduct committed by the petitioner, though she deserves punishment of removal from service, however, the respondent has taken a lenient view and imposed the punishment of reduction from the Post of Record Clerk to the post of Office Assistant. Such punishment, in my considered view, cannot be sustained in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Nyadar Singh versus Union of India and others" reported in "1989 (1) LLN 10, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue of imposing the penalty of reduction on a Government servant, recruited directly to a particular post, to a post lower than to which, he was so recruited, held that it is improper and cannot be sustained in law. It has been held as under in para 25 and 32: "25. Though the idea of reduction may not be fully equivalent with 'reversion', there are certain assumptions basic to service law which bring in the limitations of the latter on the former. The penalty of reduction in rank of a Government servant initially recruited to a higher time-scale, grade, service or post to a lower time-scale, grade, service or post virtually amounts to his removal from the higher post and the substitution of his recruitment to lower post, affecting the policy of recruitment itself." .... .... .... .... "32. The point now is as to what orders are to be made in these appeals. Appellants in the two appeals have been reduced to posts lower than these to which they were initially directly recruited. As these penalties cannot be sustained in the view we take of the rule, in the normal course the penalties imposed would require to be set aside and the disciplinary authority directed to re-consider which other penalty which it would now choose to impose. But, we are of the opinion that it would be somewhat unfair that at this distance of time the matters are re-opened. But, we are of the opinion that it would be somewhat unfair that at this distance of time the matters are re-opened. We think, having regard to all the circumstances of the cases the orders that commend themselves appropriate in the two cases are in terms following: (i) In the first of the appeals, appellant-Nyadar Singh, has, after the period of the reduction in rank has spent itself out, been restored to the original position. It would, therefore, be sufficient to set aside the penalty imposed on him and direct that the period of service in the PG NO 560 reduced post be treated as service in the post held by him prior to imposition of the penalty, subject to the condition, however, that the appellant shall not be entitled to any difference of salary for and during the period of reduction. In view of this, we think that the proceedings taken against him should come to an end and there is no need to remit the matter to the Disciplinary-Authority for selection and imposition of a fresh penalty. (ii) In the case of M.J. Ninama the penalty of reduction in rank is set aside and he shall be restored to the post which he held before the imposition of the penalty. However, for the period, if any, served by him in the lower post pursuant to the penalty imposed on him, he shall not be entitled to the difference of salary. It will also not be necessary to remit his case for fresh consideration of the choice of the penalty having regard to the lapse of time. It is ordered and the appeals disposed of accordingly. No costs" 6. The issue involved in this writ petition has been squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (cited supra) and following the same, this Court is the view that the impugned order of the respondent imposing the penalty of reduction on the petitioner who has been recruited to the post of Record Clerk, to the post of Office Assistant, lower than the post which she was recruited, cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 28.08.2008 is set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 28.08.2008 is set aside. The respondent is directed to restore the petitioner to her original position and treat the period of service in the reduced post as service in the post held by her prior to imposition of the punishment, however, subject to the condition, that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any difference of salary for and during the period of reduction. In view of this, this Court is of the view that the proceedings taken against the petitioner should come to an end and there is no need to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for selection and imposition of a fresh penalty. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.