Reversion to a lower post requires following mandatory disciplinary procedure and cannot be effected solely through a Review DPC.

The applicant, who joined the Income Tax Department in 1980, was promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer (ITO) on 24.08.2011 based on a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommendation and valid vigilance clearance.

On 29.12.2016, one day prior to his retirement, the respondents issued an order reverting him to the post of Income Tax Inspector.

This action was based on a Review DPC conducted on 28.12.2016, which declared his 2011 vigilance clearance void ab initio because a criminal FIR from 2009 (under Section 302/120B IPC) was pending at the time of his original promotion.

Although the applicant was acquitted of all criminal charges on 24.07.2018, the department served a charge sheet on 30.12.2016.

The disciplinary proceedings concluded on 19.08.2025, imposing a 10% pension cut for three years.

Crucially, the disciplinary authority found that the charges related to the criminal case and the alleged suppression of information (Articles 1 and 2) were "Not Proved".

1. Whether the reversion of the applicant from Income Tax Officer to Income Tax Inspector via a Review DPC, without a formal inquiry, was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the departmental charge sheet dated 22.12.2016 and the subsequent finalized disciplinary proceedings should be set aside.

Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that a reduction in rank cannot be imposed without following the principles of natural justice and conducting a proper departmental inquiry.

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules [CCS (CCA) Rules], specifically Rule 14, regarding the mandatory procedure for imposing major penalties.

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines dated 14.12.2007 concerning the conditions under which vigilance clearance may be withheld.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was promoted in 2011 following a categorical vigilance clearance.

When the department later discovered the pending FIR, it chose to revert the applicant summarily through a Review DPC just before his retirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that since a Rule 14 inquiry had already been initiated in 2016, any reduction in rank (reversion) could only be legally effected by following the rigorous procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, which the respondents bypassed.

The Tribunal emphasized that the findings of the final disciplinary order dated 19.08.2025 were pivotal, as the competent authority explicitly held that the charges involving the criminal case and suppression of information were "Not Proved".

Consequently, the justification for declaring the 2011 vigilance clearance void disappeared.

Regarding the charge sheet, the Tribunal found that it contained other allegations of official misconduct (Articles 3 and 4) that were proved and had resulted in a finalized penalty; thus, the court declined to interfere with the concluded disciplinary proceedings.

The respondents were directed to restore the applicant to his post (Income Tax Officer) as it stood prior to the reversion and to grant all consequential benefits.

The prayer to set aside the charge sheet and the finalized disciplinary proceedings was denied as they involved separate proven charges of misconduct.