1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(b) The action of respondent No. 3, in reducing pay of the appellant (in the junior scale N. P. S. 17) as a `punitive measure was without authority, as reduction of pay Class‑I Officers by way of penalty could only be ordered by the President, as competent authority, being the appointing authority. It has therefore been prayed that respondent's (No. 3) order dated 2‑12‑1971 and the order dated 1‑3‑1974, of respondent No. 2 be declared void mala fide and ineffective against the rights and interests of the appellant and vacated and the amount of Rs. 3,598.63 reduced from pay and allowances (due to penalty imposed) authorized to be paid. In view of the fact that the order in appeal (Finance Division's O. M. No. Acctr/AN/55/72/241 dated 1‑3‑1974) reduced the penalty to the pay being brought down by two increments for three years, without affecting future pay full pay admissible under the rules, has already been restored froth 2‑12‑1974. The points for determination in this case are : (i) whether by reason of upgradation of the post held by the appellant and his appointment thereto with retrospective effect, the penalty already imposed by the Appropriate Authority and duly effective, would be inoperative or cease to be operative and (ii) whether the order of the appellate authority, would similarly be inoperative though passed subsequent to the orders of upgradation of the post. The propriety of the two impugned orders has not been questioned on merits. The only point agitated is that in either case the order imposing the penalty/reducing the penalty was not passed by the competent authority. As against this argument it is contended that at the time the penalty was imposed respondent No. 3 was the competent authority and that this order held the field and was operative and being acted upon. It was precisely the order of respondent No. 3, which was the subject‑matter of appeal/representations, resulting in the reduction of the penalty. The mere fact that the post was upgraded and the appellant's presumptive pay increased thereby, would not affect the orders of the competent authority, already in operation. Increase in pay or change in the pay fixation rules/ orders did not affect the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) a Rules, 1960. under which action had been taken and finalized and was under implementation. This action was not vitiated by reason of revision of grade or introduction of National pay Scales. The position might have been different, if the orders had been passed subsequent to the upgradation of the post or revision of scales. In any case, the order in appeal has been passed by the competent appellate authority, as a result of the representation made to the Finance Minister. There is considerable force in these arguments and we hold that the subsequent upgradation would not affect the penalty already imposed under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and the action taken is not vitiated. There is no substance even on merits. The petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.