JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri S. Niranjan, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan, Advocate, for respondents. 2. It is contended that double punishment has been imposed upon petitioner which is illegal and contrary to Rules. 3. Punishment imposed upon petitioner is “reduction to a lower grade from MMGS-II to JMGS-I and fixing him at the initial stage in JMGS-I”. Penalty prescribed under Regulation-4 reads as under: Minor Penalties: (a) Censure; (b) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect: (c) Withholding of promotion; (d) Recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of order; (e) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting officer's pension. Major Penalties: (f) Save as provided for in (e) above, reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not me officer will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (g) Reduction to a lower grade or post; or to a lower stage in a time scale (h) Compulsory Retirement; (i) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (j) Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. 4. Counsel for petitioner drew our attention to major penalty in Clause-(g) which talks of “reduction to a lower grade or post; or to a lower stage in a time scale”. In the present case, penalty of “reduction to a lower grade” has been imposed upon petitioner and subsequent part, i.e., fixing him at the initial stage in JMGS-I is only fixation which is consequential of punishment of “ reduction to a lower grade” and cannot be construed, by any stretch of imagination, as double punishment. 5. No other point has been argued. 6. No error in the decision making process could be shown. Hence, we find no merits in the writ petition. 7. Dismissed.