Judgment 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, upholding a penalty of permanent reduction to a lower stage imposed upon him. 2. We have heard Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 3. While working as Sub-Divisional Inspector of Posts, the petitioner selected and appointed three candidates to the post of GDS (formerly known as Extra Departmental Delivery Agents). The non-selected candidates made a complaint alleging irregularities. Therefore, a charge memo was issued on 30.03.1999. In brief the Articles of charges read as follows:- (i) that the petitioner failed to follow the instructions issued by the Director General of Posts, while appointing a candidate by name T.Ramalingam; (ii) that the petitioner failed to follow the instructions, while making appointment of one C.Thangavel, who was less meritorious than two other candidates; (iii) that the petitioner failed to follow the instructions, while making appointment of one C.Pugalenthi, who was less meritorious than two other candidates. 4. An enquiry followed and the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority namely the Director of Postal Services passed an order dated 7.12.2001 imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of compulsory retirement. 5. As against the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal to the Postmaster General. The then Chief Postmaster General, who was holding additional charge as Postmaster General, allowed the appeal partly by an order dated 8.2.2002, modifying the penalty of compulsory retirement into one of permanent reduction in rank to the post of Time Scale Postal Assistant in the minimum of the time scale of pay. The order further directed that the petitioner will have to earn his increments thereafter without counting the past services in the post of Postal Assistant even for financial upgradation. 6. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.484 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Eventually, the application was withdrawn with liberty to file a Revision. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Revision before the Director General. 6. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed an application in O.A.No.484 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Eventually, the application was withdrawn with liberty to file a Revision. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a Revision before the Director General. One of the main contentions raised in the Revision was that the person who passed the orders on the appeal, was actually the Chief Postmaster General of Tamil Nadu Circle and that though he was holding additional charge as Postmaster General, Central Region, Tiruchirapalli, he was not competent to decide the appeal. It was admitted by the petitioner himself, in his revision that the Director General was not the competent authority even to entertain the revision and that despite this fact, he was filing a revision before the Director General. 8. The said revision was taken up, not by the Director General, but by the Member (Personnel) of the Postal Services Board, on the ground that he was the Revisional Authority under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as against the orders of the Chief Postmaster General. By an order dated 30.10.2013, the revisional authority, namely the Member (Personnel) upheld the objection of the petitioner relating to the competency of the Appellate Authority and hence set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter back to the proper Appellate Authority, directing him to decide the case on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing. 9. Not accepting even the order of the Member (Personnel), the petitioner sent a representation to the Director General of Posts on 5.1.2004 requesting him to take up the matter and dispose it of in accordance with law without remitting it back. 10. Therefore, the reviewing authority took up the matter in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and passed an order dated 10.11.2004, the operative portion of which reads as follows:- "7. The reviewing authority has suo moto decided to review the revisionary order dated 30.10.2003 under Rule 29-A ibid and set it aside on the ground that the stand taken by the revisionary authority was not in accordance with the rules. The reviewing authority has suo moto decided to review the revisionary order dated 30.10.2003 under Rule 29-A ibid and set it aside on the ground that the stand taken by the revisionary authority was not in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the appellate order dated 08.02.2002 shall stand where the punishment of compulsory retirement of Shri.R.Dakshinamurthy was modified into permanent reduction in rank to the Time Scale Postal Assistant in the minimum of time scale of pay immediately from the date of joining of duty in Vriddhachalam Division. 8. Therefore, the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby orders accordingly." 11. After giving various representations against the said order, the petitioner challenged the order of the reviewing authority, by filing O.A.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition. 12. The main contention of the petitioner is that the procedure contemplated under Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for a suo moto Review has not been followed by the first Respondent and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, reads as follows:- "29-A. Review The President may, at any time, either on his own motion or otherwise review any order passed under these rules, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought to his notice: Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by the President unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of marking a representation against the penalty proposed or where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in Rule 11 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the major penalties and if an enquiry under Rule 14 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except the provisions of Rule 19, and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary." 13. In a sense, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that this is not a case of exercise of suo moto power of Review. The Revision filed by the petitioner on 6.2.2003 to the Director General of Posts, even according to him, could not have been entertained by the Director General. Therefore, the Member (Personnel) treated it as a revision under Rule 29 and allowed it on 30.10.2003 and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority. This was on the ground that the person who passed orders on the appeal of the petitioner was not competent to exercise the powers of the Appellate Authority. 14. But not satisfied with the order of remand passed by the Member (Personnel), the petitioner went back to the Director General, with a petition on 5.1.2004. This, to say the least, was atrocious, in view of the fact that the petitioner squarely conceded in the very first para of his first revision dated 6.2.2013 that the Director General was not competent to decide his revision. Therefore, the Director General had no alternative except to send the papers to the Office of the President, who is the reviewing authority. This was done only in view of the fact that the petitioner again and again wanted the Director General to decide his revision, even while maintaining that he was not competent to entertain the revision. Therefore, the only manner in which the petition of the writ petitioner could be disposed of was to invoke Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 15. The power of review available under Rule 29-A is not merely a suo moto power, but could also be invoked "otherwise", as can be seen from the express language of Rule 29-A which we have extracted above. The petitioner had exhausted the alternative remedies of appeal and revision and he in fact succeeded in getting an order of remand from the revisional authority. His success in the revision petition was not actually a well deserved success since he addressed the revision to an incompetent authority, putting the blame on the Central Administrative Tribunal. Yet, the matter was taken up by the competent revisional authority and he remitted the matter back to the proper appellate authority. The petitioner was still unsatisfied and hence requested the Director General (who according to the petitioner himself was incompetent) to pass orders in the revision. Yet, the matter was taken up by the competent revisional authority and he remitted the matter back to the proper appellate authority. The petitioner was still unsatisfied and hence requested the Director General (who according to the petitioner himself was incompetent) to pass orders in the revision. It is in such circumstances that the President was constrained to invoke the power of review available under Rule 29-A to take up a matter "either on his own motion or otherwise". Therefore, the petitioner cannot assail the impugned order on the ground that the invocation of the power available under Rule 29-A was improper. 16. The petitioner cannot also rely upon the proviso to Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is only in cases where the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose a penalty (when no penalty has been imposed by the subordinate authorities) or proposes to enhance any penalty imposed by a subordinate authority that a reasonable opportunity of making a representation should be given to the delinquent. In this case, the Reviewing Authority decided only to reduce the penalty. Therefore, this is not a case where the petitioner can complain of violation of the opportunity of hearing contemplated by the proviso to Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, the contention based upon the proviso to Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is liable to be rejected. 17. But the matter does not end there. Today, the petitioner has been imposed with a penalty of reduction in rank to the post of Time Scale Postal Assistant in the minimum of time scale of pay. This has been done on a permanent basis. We have already extracted paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order dated 10.11.2004 passed in the name of the President. It states that the order of the appellate authority dated 8.2.2002 will stand. As per the order of the appellate authority dated 8.2.2002, the petitioner was imposed with a penalty of permanent reduction in rank to the post of Time Scale Postal Assistant in the minimum of the Time Scale of Pay immediately from the date of joining duty in Vridhachalam Division. The order also stated that the petitioner will then start earning his increments in Time Scale as per the Rules for entitlement of increments. The order also stated that the petitioner will then start earning his increments in Time Scale as per the Rules for entitlement of increments. The order further stated that the petitioner will not be entitled to count the past services before such reinstatement, even towards financial upgradation like TBOP or BCR. To understand the scope of this order, it would be better to extract the relevant portion of the order dated 8.2.2002, which is as follows:- "Therefore, I U.Srinivasa Raghavan, Chief Postmaster-General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai 600 002 and holding additional charge of Postmaster-General, Central Region, modify the punishment of compulsory retirement into one of permanent reduction in rank of his official to the Time Scale Postal Assistant in the minimum of Time scale of pay immediately from the date of joining of duty in Vridhachalam Division. He will then on start drawing his increments in Time scale as per rules for entitlement of increments in Time scale Postal Assistant cadre. He will not be entitled to count the past services before such Time scale reinstatement towards financial upgradation like TBOP or BCR nor for claiming increments in the Time scale of pay of Postal Assistant. The period between the date of his compulsory retirement and the date he joins duty, consequent to this order, as Time Scale Postal Assistant will not count for leave, increment or any other purpose, except for pension. His past services prior to the date of his compulsory retirement will however count for pension." 18. By the order passed on 10.11.2004 under Rule 29-A, the reviewing authority has reiterated the above order. Therefore, we have to take it that the penalty now imposed upon the petitioner is what is extracted above. The question now arising for consideration is as to whether the above penalty is in accordance with law or not ? 19. Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulates five kinds of minor penalties and five kinds of major penalties. One of the minor penalties stipulated in Rule 11 (iii) (a) reads as follows:- "11. Penalties Minor Penalties:- (i) ............. (ii) ........... (iii) ............ (iii) (a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension." 20. One of the minor penalties stipulated in Rule 11 (iii) (a) reads as follows:- "11. Penalties Minor Penalties:- (i) ............. (ii) ........... (iii) ............ (iii) (a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension." 20. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner herein, is not a reduction by one stage in the same Time scale of pay and hence it would not fall under Rule 11(iii)(a), to be a minor penalty. Since the impugned penalty is a reduction to a lower post, it is a major penalty. One of the major penalties stipulated in Rule 11(vi) reads as follows:- "....... (vi) reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service from which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period-- (a) the period of reduction to time-scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and if so, to what extent; and (b) the Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher time-scale of pay, grade, post or service." 21. Since the impugned order reduces the petitioner to a lower post carrying lower time-scale of pay, the penalty imposed by the impugned order would fall under Rule 11(vi). But Rule 11(vi) makes it clear that a reduction to a lower time-scale of pay could be only for a period to be specified in the order of penalty. 22. In order to remove any doubt about what the expression "specified period" connotes, the Government of India has issued an Office Memorandum in G.I., M.F., O.M.No.F.2(18)-E.III/61 dated 7.5.1961, which still holds good and which finds a place in Swamy's Compilation of CCS (CCA) Rules, thirty-seventh Edition-2014 at page 21. 22. In order to remove any doubt about what the expression "specified period" connotes, the Government of India has issued an Office Memorandum in G.I., M.F., O.M.No.F.2(18)-E.III/61 dated 7.5.1961, which still holds good and which finds a place in Swamy's Compilation of CCS (CCA) Rules, thirty-seventh Edition-2014 at page 21. The Office Memorandum reads as follows:- "(9) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale:- Every order passed by a Competent Authority under sub-rule(2) of Fundamental Rule 29 imposing on a Government servant the penalty or reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale should indicate- (i) the date from which it will take effect and in cases where the reduction is proposed to be imposed for a specified period, the period (in terms of years and months) for which the penalty shall be operative. It should be noted that the reduction may be for an unspecified or an indefinite period and in cases where no period has been specified in the order of penalty, the conclusion is that the penalty is for an unspecified period. (ii) the extent (in terms of years and months), if any, to which the period referred to at (i) above shall operate to postpone future increments on restoration after the specified period. The period specified under this sub-clause shall in no case exceed the period specified under sub-clause(i) above." 23. Yet another Office Memorandum issued in G.I., Department of Personnel and Training, O.M.No.11012/2/2005-Estt.(A) dated 14.5.2007, which also relates to such penalties, read as follows:- "5. Attention in this connection is also invited to the Government of India M.H.A., O.M.No.9/13/92-Estt.(D), dated 10.10.1962 and No.9/30/63-Estt.(D), dated 7.2.1964 (Decision (9) above ) which stipulates that an order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale should invariably specify the period of reduction unless the clear intention is that, the reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period. These instructions also indicate the manner in which the order should be framed when the reduction is for specified period or indefinite period. These instructions also indicate the manner in which the order should be framed when the reduction is for specified period or indefinite period. In case the intention of the Competent Authority is to award the penalty of reduction on permanent basis, the same may be specifically stated in the order so that the intention is conveyed to the Government servant in unambiguous terms and he is afforded full opportunity for submission of his appeal as provided in the rules. (6) Ministries / Departments are requested to please bring the above to the notice of all concerned for information and necessary action." 24. A reading of the above would show that though Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, uses the expression "for a period to be specified", the Government of India had interpreted the same to mean and include an "unspecified period" and "indefinite period". To give such an interpretation, both the Office Memoranda quoted above, rely upon Fundamental Rule 29. Therefore, we may have to have a look at Fundamental Rule 29. 25. Fundamental Rule 29 contains three sub-rules. The first sub-rule deals with reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale of pay. Therefore, it corresponds to Rule 11(iii)(a) and Rule 11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Since we are not concerned here with a case of reduction in the same time scale of pay, we need not look at sub-rule (1) of Fundamental Rule 29. 26. But sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29 deal with the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale and they correspond to Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, let us look at sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29, which read as follows:- "29(2) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale, the authority ordering the reduction shall specify:- (a) the period for which the reduction shall be effective; and (b) whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent. (3) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the service, grade or post from which he was reduced." 27. (3) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the service, grade or post from which he was reduced." 27. Interestingly, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29, which we have extracted above, were actually substituted just about 14 months ago by way of amendment issued in G.I., Department of Personnel and Training O.M.No.6/2/2013-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 10.12.2013. 28. It is seen from the language employed in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 29 that reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale should always be for a specified period and the rules certainly contemplate restoration not only to the post from which reduction was ordered but also the restoration of seniority. 29. But unfortunately, the Administrative Instructions issued under Fundamental Rule 29, are in tune with the Administrative Instructions issued to Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Despite the fact that sub-rules (2) and (3) of Fundamental Rule 29, in their present form, were incorporated only in the year 2013, the Government of India had not modified the original Administrative Instructions issued way back in G.I., M.H.A., O.M.No.9/13/62- Estt.(D) dated 10.10.1962 and No.9/30/63-Estt.(D) dated 7.2.1964. This is why the same set of Administrative Instructions are also followed in respect of Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 30. The Administrative Instructions issued under G.I., M.H.A., O.M.No. 9/13/62- Estt.(D) dated 10.10.1962 and No.9/30/63-Estt.(D) dated 7.2.1964 read as follows:- "Certain doubts have arisen regarding the consequence of an order of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale and it has also been found that there has been no uniformity in determining the consequence of such reduction. Where such an order is passed, two questions often arise for consideration, namely:- (i) when should the Government servant so punished be considered eligible for re-promotion; and (ii) how should the seniority of such a Government servant be determined on re-promotion. 2. The order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale may not specify the period of reduction. Where the order does not specify the period of reduction and there is coupled with it an order declaring the Government servant permanently unfit for promotion, the question of re-promotion will, obviously, not arise. The order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale may not specify the period of reduction. Where the order does not specify the period of reduction and there is coupled with it an order declaring the Government servant permanently unfit for promotion, the question of re-promotion will, obviously, not arise. In other cases, where the period of reduction is not specified, the Government servant should be deemed to be reduced for an indefinite period, i.e., till such date as, on the basis of his permanence subsequent to the order of reduction, he may be considered fit for promotion. On re-promotion, the seniority of such a Government servant should be determined by the date of re-promotion. In all such cases, the person loses his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post entirely. On re-promotion, the seniority of such a Government servant should be determined by the date of re-promotion without regard to the service rendered by him in such service, grade or post prior to his reduction. (3) The more common course is to specify the period of reduction and except when it is intended to debar a Government servant from promotion permanently, it is the preferable course. Accordingly, it has been decided in consultation with the Ministries of Law and Finance that in future, an order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale should invariably specify-- (i) the period of reduction, unless the clear intention is that, the reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period; (ii) whether on such re-promotion, the Government servant will regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post or higher time-scale which has been assigned to him prior to the imposition of the penalty. In cases where the reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise be fixed in the higher service, grade or post or the higher time-scale at what it would have been but for its reduction. In cases where the reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise be fixed in the higher service, grade or post or the higher time-scale at what it would have been but for its reduction. Where the reduction is for a specified period and is to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the Government servant on re-promotion may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed by giving credit for the period of service rendered by him in the higher service, grade or post or higher time-scale. 4. If the order of reduction is intended for an indefinite period, the order should be framed as follows:- 'A' is reduced to the lower post / grade / service of 'X' until he is found fit by the Competent Authority to be restored to the higher post / grade / service of 'Y'. In cases where it is intended that the fitness of the Government servant for re-promotion or restoration to his original position will be considered only after a specified period, the order should be made in the following form:- 'A' is reduced to the lower post / grade / service of 'X'until he is found fit, after a period of ..... years from the date of his order, to be restored to the higher post of 'Y'. " 31. Therefore, two things are clear from Fundamental Rule 29 (2) and (3) and the Administrative Instructions issued in the Office Memoranda dated 10.10.1962 and 7.2.1964. They are: (1) that the Rules contemplate reduction to a lower service, post or scale only for a period to be specified in the order and they also contemplate restoration not merely to the original post but also the restoration of seniority after the period of punishment is undergone and (2) that it is only the Administrative Instructions which actually allowed reduction for an indefinite or an unspecified period. 32. 32. Similarly, Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules also contemplate, reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service only "for a period to be specified in the order of penalty", along with a further direction in the very same order of penalty as to whether the officer will or will not gain increments or promotion during the sufferance of penalty and whether he will regain his seniority after expiry of the period of penalty. But it is only under the Administrative Instructions of the years 1962, 1964 and 2007 that the Government had indicated the availability of a power to order reduction to a lower post on a permanent basis or for an unspecified period. Therefore, it is doubtful whether by Administrative Instructions, the scope of the Statutory Rule issued in exercise of the power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution could be enlarged. 33. The reason as to why we doubt the existence of such a power is that even the power of denial of promotion to the Government servant, as a consequence of reduction to a lower grade or post, is made available under Rule 11(vi) only for a specified period. Rule 11(vi) clearly states "reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service, for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced." 34. The only tampering that could be made to a penalty of reduction to a lower grade or post, is to say whether after re-promotion to the old post, the Government servant will have his seniority restored or not and to say whether the period of reduction will operate to postpone future increments. In other words, by virtue of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 11(vi), the disciplinary authority is competent to impose the penalty of reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period specified in the order, which shall have the effect of barring the Government servant from seeking any promotion during that period, either with or without the same operating to postpone future increments after re-promotion and with or without the same allowing the restoration of his seniority upon re-promotion. 35. 35. Therefore, the interpretation by way of Administrative Instructions given to the above Rule, virtually seeks to destroy the effect of clauses (a) and (b) and to seal the fate of an employee for ever. Such a penalty in given cases, may be much worse than the penalty of even compulsory retirement. In the case on hand, the employee appears to be 52 years of age when he filed the writ petition in the year 2013. The order of penalty was dated 10.11.2004. Therefore, if the order is understood to be one of permanent reduction till the retirement of the petitioner, it would have the effect of freezing the service life of the petitioner in the post of Time Scale Postal Assistant for a period of almost 16 to 18 years. This does not appear to be the consequence envisaged in Rule 11(vi), though it has been interpreted as such by way of Administrative Instructions. 36. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the Respondents, in the light of what we have indicated above. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.40 of 2010 is allowed, setting aside the order dated 10.11.2004 issued by the first respondent. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent namely the Member (Personnel) of the Postal Services Board, instead of the first respondent, in view of the fact that the matter requires a fresh look at the Rules vis- a- vis, the Administrative Instructions. The second respondent shall look in to the matter in the light of the observations made above and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.