R BALACHANDRAN vs M/o Communications

1 OA/310/01094/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01094/2017
th
Dated this the 8 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R. Balachandran,
S/o D. Ramalingam,
No.2, Kannappan Street,
Ganapathypuram,
Chrompet. .. Applicant
By Advocate Mr. T. Ashok Raj for M/s. R. Malaichamy
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by
rep by The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tambaram Division,
Tambaram.
2. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices
and Adhoc Disciplinary Authority,
Thiruvallur Sub-division,
Thiruvallur …Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V. Athikesavan

2 OA/310/01094/2017
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member)
The applicant, GDS Mail Deliverer -II being aggrieved
nd
by the order of the 2 respondent, dated 05.01.2017 in
removing him from engagement and which has been
confirmed in appeal by the order, dated 05.05.2017 of the
st
1 respondent has filed the OA to set aside the said orders
and consequently to, direct the respondents to reinstate the
applicant with all attendant benefits and to pass such
further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of
the OA are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail
Deliverer-II (GDS MD-II) at Sithalapakkam B.O. on
01.02.2014. As the duties of GDS MD-II at the said office
required two persons, the applicant repeatedly requested the
competent authority to appoint another GDS MD and
distribute the workload. Though the authority assured him
that necessary action would be taken, instead of appointing

3 OA/310/01094/2017
another GDS MD, additional duties were entrusted to the
applicant, including bringing the B.O. bag daily from
Madambakkam S.O., which was the duty of GDS MD-I at
Sithalapakkam. Due to the excessive workload, the applicant
suffered physically and mentally and was compelled to avail
leave. He availed leave from 25.03.2015 to 04.04.2015.
However, to his shock, he was placed off duty with effect
from 25.03.2015. Subsequently, a Charge Memo, dated
31.07.2015 was issued to him under Rule 10 of the
Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and
Engagement) Rules, 2011. The applicant denied the charges.
Since the regular Disciplinary Authority was a material
witness in the matter, the ASPOs, Tiruvallur Sub-Division,
Tiruvallur, was appointed as the Ad-hoc Disciplinary
Authority. An inquiry was thereafter conducted, in which the
applicant fully cooperated. No complaint was made against
him by any person. The principal witness, who was allegedly
the complainant, was dropped by the Inquiry Officer and was
not examined. The charges were not established by material
evidence. The applicant submitted detailed replies to the
Presenting Officer's brief and the Inquiry Officer's report.

4 OA/310/01094/2017
Nevertheless, without properly considering his submissions,
the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated
05.01.2017 removing him from engagement. Aggrieved by
the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal dated
19.01.2017 before the 1st respondent. The appeal was not
disposed of within the prescribed reasonable period. The
Government of India's decisions below Rule 27 of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965, require appeals pending for more than a
month to be reported to the next higher authority, and the
relevant instructions below Rule 3-C of the CCS (Conduct)
Rules require appeals and petitions to be disposed of within
a reasonable time, with an acknowledgement or interim reply
where disposal is likely to exceed one month. The applicant
submits that he has remained out of employment due to
circumstances beyond his control. The excessive workload
entrusted to him, which could not reasonably be performed
by a single person, resulted in his inability to discharge the
duties and consequent illness and leave. This aspect was not
properly considered by the disciplinary authority. Further,
the appeal dated 19.01.2017 was disposed of by memo dated
05.05.2017 without effectively considering the various

5 OA/310/01094/2017
grounds raised by the applicant. Hence, the applicant has
filed the present Original Application challenging the
impugned orders.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the impugned order of punishment is arbitrary, illegal and
disproportionate to the charges alleged against the applicant.
He contended that the points and objections specifically
raised by the applicant in his detailed reply dated
25.11.2016 to the Inquiry Officer's report were not properly
considered by the 2nd respondent before imposing the
punishment. The disciplinary authority has failed to deal
with the material contentions raised by the applicant and
has mechanically imposed the major penalty of removal from
engagement. The learned counsel further submitted that,
apart from the regular duties assigned to the applicant as
GDS MD-II, he was orally directed by SW4 to bring the B.O.
bag daily from Madambakkam S.O., though the said duty
was officially assigned to GDS MD-I. The applicant was thus
burdened with additional duties beyond his normal

6 OA/310/01094/2017
responsibilities. Due to the excessive workload, the applicant
suffered ill-health and was compelled to avail medical leave.
According to the learned counsel, this crucial circumstance
was not properly appreciated by the 2nd respondent while
imposing the extreme punishment of removal from
.
engagement
4. It was further submitted that, on account of the
excessive workload, the applicant frequently became unwell.
Whenever he was required to proceed on leave, he informed
the competent authorities to make suitable arrangements by
providing a substitute so that the delivery of postal articles
would not be affected and the public would not suffer.
However, no such arrangement was made by the authorities.
The applicant himself made efforts to arrange for a
substitute during his leave, but no person was willing to
undertake the work for the meagre remuneration offered.
Despite being fully aware of these circumstances, SW4 to
SW6 failed to make any suitable alternative arrangement for
delivery of the postal articles pertaining to the MD-II beat
during the applicant's leave periods. The learned counsel

7 OA/310/01094/2017
contended that the failure of the authorities to make
alternative arrangements, despite their knowledge of the
applicant's absence and the circumstances leading to his
leave, cannot be attributed solely to the applicant. The
authorities were duty-bound to ensure uninterrupted
delivery of postal articles during his leave. Therefore,
imposing the severe punishment of removal from
engagement upon the applicant, without properly
considering the administrative failure on the part of SW4 to
SW6, is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of
natural justice.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that ordinary
and accountable postal articles were, in fact, permitted to
remain in polythene bags kept in front of the seat of SW4.
Such articles accumulated over the period from July 2014 to
March 2015 and, according to the applicant, ultimately
amounted to approximately ten polythene bags. The
concerned authorities were fully aware of such accumulation
but failed to take effective steps for their timely delivery.

8 OA/310/01094/2017
Instead, the entire responsibility was sought to be fastened
upon the applicant. It was therefore argued that, if there was
any non-delivery or accumulation of postal articles, the same
could not be attributed exclusively to the applicant,
particularly when the supervisory authorities were aware of
the situation and had failed to make appropriate
arrangements for their delivery. The learned counsel
submitted that SW4 to SW6 were responsible for ensuring
proper supervision and disposal of the accumulated articles.
In such circumstances, holding the applicant solely
responsible and imposing the extreme penalty of removal
from engagement is wholly unjustified and disproportionate.
6. The learned counsel also submitted that the service
union had given a strike call in March 2015, which
continued for seven days from 10.03.2015 to 16.03.2015.
The applicant did not participate in the said strike and, on
the contrary, continued to attend and perform his duties at
the S.O. during the strike period. This, according to the
learned counsel, clearly demonstrates the applicant's

9 OA/310/01094/2017
sincerity and willingness to discharge his duties in the
interest of the Department and the public.
7. It was further submitted that, from 17.03.2015
onwards, the applicant was on medical leave due to his ill-
health. During the relevant period, according to the
inventory prepared by SW6, as many as 159 registered
letters (RLs) were shown as having been handed over to the
applicant for delivery by SW4 and SW6. The learned counsel
contended that the manner in which the said inventory was
prepared and the articles were shown as having been
entrusted to the applicant gives rise to serious doubt
regarding the correctness of the alleged entrustment and
appears to have been relied upon to fasten responsibility
upon the applicant. The learned counsel ultimately
submitted that the overall conduct of the applicant clearly
establishes that he had acted bona fide and had sincerely
obeyed the orders and directions issued by the competent
authorities. He discharged his duties to the best of his ability
despite being burdened with additional work and suffering

10 OA/310/01094/2017
from ill-health. The authorities, having failed to make
suitable arrangements during his leave and having
themselves been aware of the accumulation of postal articles,
could not have shifted the entire responsibility upon the
applicant.
8. The learned counsel submitted that there is a material
discrepancy regarding the period of accumulation of the 212
registered letters (RLs). As per the MOC, the period was from
18.09.2014 to 25.03.2015, whereas, according to the
inventory prepared by SW6, it was from 25.07.2014 to
24.03.2015. Further, the witnesses categorically stated that
the articles recovered from the ten polythene bags did not
bear date-stamp impressions showing their actual dates of
receipt at the B.O. Hence, there was no reliable material to
establish that all 212 articles belonged to the period alleged
in the charge. These material discrepancies rendered the
charge vague, but the same were not properly considered by
the Inquiry Officer or the Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority,
resulting in violation of the principles of natural justice.

11 OA/310/01094/2017
9. The learned counsel further submitted that, despite the
allegation that 212 accountable articles remained
undelivered from July 2014 to March 2015, not a single
complaint from any of the addressees was produced to
substantiate the charge. Even SW6, who conducted the
inventory, did not obtain the outer covers of any of the
alleged RLs from the addressees or otherwise produce
independent material to establish the alleged non-delivery. In
the absence of any complaint or corroborative evidence, the
charge against the applicant remained unsubstantiated. The
inquiry, therefore, was not conducted in accordance with the
principles of a fair and proper inquiry.
10. The learned counsel submitted that the charge memo
issued under Rule 10 was substantially based on an alleged
complaint by Smt. Mangalakshmi Arul. However, the said
person, who was the material witness, was not examined by
the Inquiry Officer and was dropped from the inquiry on the
oral request of the Presenting Officer, despite there being no

12 OA/310/01094/2017
provision permitting such a course. Consequently, the
applicant was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine
the principal complainant. The findings of the Inquiry
Officer, insofar as they relied upon the alleged complaint of a
witness who was never examined, are therefore
unsustainable. This vital aspect was also not considered by
the 2nd respondent.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that the
applicant was denied an effective opportunity to defend
himself, as he was not permitted to inspect the documents
relied upon by the Inquiry Officer and the documents
specifically sought by him were not supplied. He was also
denied a proper opportunity to cross-examine the State
witnesses. In the absence of the principal complainant, and
without sufficient oral or documentary evidence, the Inquiry
Officer nevertheless proceeded to hold the charges proved.
The learned counsel therefore contended that the inquiry
and the consequential punishment are vitiated by denial of
reasonable opportunity and violation of the principles of

13 OA/310/01094/2017
natural justice. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned
orders be set aside and the reliefs sought in the present OA
be granted.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents,
relying upon the reply statement, vehemently opposed the
contentions of the applicant. He submitted that the applicant
failed to discharge his primary duty of delivering the postal
articles entrusted to his beat and thereby failed to maintain
devotion to duty. Instead of explaining the non-delivery of
the articles, the applicant had raised irrelevant contentions
regarding the workload and other circumstances. The
allegation that his appeal was disposed of without
considering the grounds raised therein is also denied, as the
appeal was duly considered and disposed of by the 1st
respondent. The charges are serious in nature, as the
applicant had kept 6,089 unregistered articles and 212
registered articles undelivered for a considerable period. He
also failed to cooperate in furnishing his statement before
the ASP, Tambaram Sub-Division, while he was under off-

14 OA/310/01094/2017
duty orders. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting the inquiry
in accordance with the prescribed procedure, held the
charges proved. Thereafter, the Ad-hoc Disciplinary
Authority, after considering the applicant's representation
against the inquiry report, imposed the penalty of removal
from engagement. The appellate authority, upon due
consideration of the grounds raised in the appeal, confirmed
the said penalty.
13. The learned counsel further submitted that, under the
GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, a GDS is
required, during the period of leave, to arrange for his duties
to be performed by a substitute approved in writing by the
competent leave-sanctioning authority. The applicant neither
obtained the requisite approval for leave nor arranged for an
approved substitute to perform his duties. Therefore, his
contention that the authorities were required to make
alternative arrangements for delivery of articles during his
alleged leave is untenable. Having failed to comply with the
prescribed procedure for availing leave and arranging a
substitute, the applicant cannot attribute the resulting non-
delivery of articles to the departmental authorities.

15 OA/310/01094/2017
14. It was further submitted that the applicant had kept
6,089 ordinary articles and 212 registered articles in
polythene bags without proper remarks, resulting in his
being placed off duty by the ASP, Tambaram Sub-Division.
The contention that the competent authorities failed to take
steps for delivery of the articles and instead sought to blame
the applicant is denied. As a GDS Mail Deliverer, the
applicant was primarily responsible for prompt delivery of
the articles entrusted to his beat. Having retained a large
volume of articles without delivery, he cannot shift the
responsibility upon the supervisory authorities. The
Department subsequently made special arrangements to
deliver the undelivered articles to the respective addressees.
Such large-scale non-delivery adversely affected the
reputation and functioning of the Department, for which the
applicant was primarily responsible.
15. The learned counsel further submitted that there was
no bias or procedural irregularity in the conduct of the
inquiry. The Inquiry Officer, acting in a quasi-judicial

16 OA/310/01094/2017
capacity, conducted the proceedings in accordance with the
prescribed rules and afforded the applicant reasonable
opportunity to defend himself. The charges were established
on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced
during the inquiry. The preliminary inquiry report is not a
mandatory document and its absence does not vitiate the
regular inquiry. The applicant did not effectively disprove the
allegation regarding the non-delivery of the large volume of
postal articles and merely attempted to attribute
responsibility to others. After considering the entire oral and
documentary evidence and the applicant's representation
against the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority found
the irregularities proved and imposed the penalty of removal
from engagement. The appellate authority also duly
considered the applicant's appeal and confirmed the penalty.
Hence, the respondents submitted that there is no ground
for interference with the impugned orders and prayed for
dismissal of the OA.

17 OA/310/01094/2017
16. The applicant has filed a Rejoinder reiterating the
contentions raised the OA.
17. We have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on either side, perused the pleadings and
the materials placed on record. We have also gone through
the judicial decisions referred to by the learned counsel in
support of their respective contentions.
18. The Applicant was issued with a Charge Memo dated
31.07.2015, while he was working as GDS MD – II, (POD)
Sithalapakkam, Chennai under Rule 10 of Department of
Posts, GraminDak Sevaks (C & E) Rules, 2011, containing 3
Articles of charge which reads as follows:
“Article -I
That the said Sri. R. Balachandran GD Mail
Deliverer-II, Sithalapakkam BO a/w
Madambakkam SO, while working as such had
kept 6089 unregistered articles as undelivered
without proper remarks in the Sithalapakkam
B.O on 25.3.15. The above articles were
entrusted for delivery to Sri. R. Balachandran
GDS Mail Deliverer-II, Sithalapakkam BO on
various dates from 16.1.2015 to 25.3.15.

18 OA/310/01094/2017
Article-II
That the said Sri. R. Balachandran GDS Mail
Deliverer-II, Sithalapakkam BO a/w
Madambakkam SO, while working as such had
kept 212 registered articles as undelivered
without proper remarks in the Sithalapakkam
B.O on 25.3.15. The above articles were
entrusted for delivery to Sri. R. Balachandran
GDS Mail Deliverer-II, Sithalapakkam BO on
various dates from 18.9.2014 to 25.3.15
Article -III
That the said Sri. R. Balachandran GDS Mail
Deliverer-II, Sithalapakkam BO a/w
Madambakkam SO, while remaining under Put
off duty, refused to give any statement before
Assistant Superintendent Posts, Tambaram Sub
Division regarding his charges
Thus, it is imputed that Sri. R. Balachandran
GDS Mail Deliverer-II, Sithalapakkam BO had
failed to follow the provisions contained in Rule
115 (1) & 115 (2) of Volume VI, Part III and there
by failed to maintain Devotion to duty as
required by Rule 21 of Department of Posts,
Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement)
Rules, 2011.”
19. The applicant denied the charges vide his letter dated
07.08.2015 and hence Rule 10 Inquiry proceedings were
proceeded, and the Disciplinary Authority appointed the
Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. The Inquiry
Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on
19.10.2016 holding the charges proved. After going through
the report and records the Disciplinary Authority imposed

19 OA/310/01094/2017
the punishment of ‘Removal from Engagement’ vide order
dated 05.01.2017. Aggrieved by the order the applicant filed
appeal before the Appellate Authority on 19.01.2017. The
Appellate Authority in turn rejected the appeal of the
applicant by an order dated 05.05.2017 and confirmed the
penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority.
20. We find the following issues are required to be
considered by this Tribunal to be adjudicated:
(i) Whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted
under Rule 10 against the applicant are vitiated for
violation of principle of natural justice, particularly on
account of alleged non supply of relied upon
documents and procedural irregularities in the inquiry
and the findings of the DA & AA are perverse?
(ii) Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed upon
the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the charges
proved and in consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, thereby warranting
interference under the doctrine of proportionality?
21. We have already noticed that the scope of judicial
review in disciplinary matters is limited. It is well settled
through a catena of judgments that the Court/Tribunal
does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary
proceedings and cannot re-appreciate or re-weigh the

20 OA/310/01094/2017
evidence merely because another view is possible.
Interference is warranted only where the findings are
perverse, based on no evidence, contrary to law, or where
there has been violation of the principles of natural justice.
In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that, where there is some evidence
supporting the findings of the disciplinary authority, the
adequacy or reliability of such evidence ordinarily cannot be
examined in judicial review.
22. Keeping the above principles in view, we have carefully
examined the Inquiry Officer's report as well as the orders
passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority. The charges against the applicant are supported
by documentary material, including the Panchnama
evidencing the large number of undelivered postal articles.
The findings of the Inquiry Officer are therefore not based on
conjecture or surmise, but on material available on record.
We further find that the Appellate Authority considered the
grounds raised by the applicant in his appeal and affirmed
the findings of the Disciplinary Authority by assigning

21 OA/310/01094/2017
reasons. We, therefore, find no perversity, illegality or non-
application of mind warranting interference with the findings
recorded in the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, this
issue is answered in the negative and against the applicant.
23. The next issue for consideration is whether the penalty
of removal from engagement imposed upon the applicant is
grossly disproportionate to the charges proved so as to
warrant interference under the doctrine of proportionality.
The principal charge against the applicant relates to the non-
delivery of a large number of postal articles while he was
working as GDS Mail Deliverer at Sithalapakkam, thereby
indicating negligence and lack of due care in the discharge of
his duties. At the same time, it is relevant to note that there
is no allegation that the applicant had misappropriated
Government money, committed embezzlement, or acted with
any mala fide intention. The nature and circumstances of the
misconduct, therefore, require consideration while examining
the proportionality of the extreme penalty imposed.

22 OA/310/01094/2017
24. On a careful examination of the record, it is noticed
that it is an undisputed position that the applicant had
repeatedly brought to the notice of the higher authorities the
excessive workload, shortage of staff and the difficulties
faced by him in delivering the large volume of postal articles
within time. Despite such repeated requests, there is nothing
on record to show that the authorities took effective steps to
address the difficulties brought to their notice. No
satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the
respondents as to why additional staff was not provided
despite the applicant's repeated representations. Equally, no
material has been placed before us to establish that
adequate manpower was available at the relevant time to
effectively discharge the volume of work entrusted to the
applicant.
25. It is also relevant to note that, during the course of
hearing, both parties admitted that the said Post Office had
subsequently grown into a large Post Office and that
additional Postmen were deployed pursuant to the order

23 OA/310/01094/2017
dated 09.03.2018. This subsequent deployment of additional
manpower lends support, to some extent, to the applicant's
contention that the Post Office was facing substantial
workload and manpower-related difficulties. In these
circumstances, we find considerable force in the submission
of the learned counsel for the applicant that the repeated
requests made by him for additional staff to cope with the
excessive workload were not given due consideration either
by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority.
26. While the applicant cannot be completely absolved of
his responsibility to discharge the duties attached to his
post, the surrounding circumstances, particularly the
excessive workload, shortage of manpower and the
applicant's repeated requests for additional assistance, ought
to have been given due consideration while determining the
appropriate penalty. The entire lapse could not, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, be attributed solely to the
applicant without examining the administrative
circumstances contributing to the non-delivery of the postal
articles.

24 OA/310/01094/2017
27. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances,
including the nature of the misconduct proved, the absence
of any allegation of misappropriation or mala fide intention,
the excessive workload and shortage of manpower brought to
the notice of the authorities, and the subsequent deployment
of additional staff, we are of the considered view that the
extreme penalty of removal from engagement calls for
reconsideration on the touchstone of proportionality
28. In this regard, we may refer to the case of B.C.
Chaturvedi Vs Union of India and Ors, Order dated
01.11.1995, reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749, wherein, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“In Rangaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1989 SC 1137], a
Bench of three Judges of this Court, while considering
the power to interfere with the order of punishment, held
that this Court. while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitutions, is empowered to alter or
interfere with the penalty; and the Tribunal had no
power to substitute its own discretion for that of the
authority. It would be seen that this Court did not
appear to have intended to lay down that in no case, the
High Court/Tribunal has the power to alter the penalty
imposed by the disciplinary or the appellate authority.
The controversy was again canvassed in State Bank of
India 's case (supra), where the court elaborately reviewed
the case law on the scope of judicial review and powers of
the Tribunal in disciplinary matters and nature of
punishment. On the facts in that case , since the appellate
authority had not adverted to the relevant

25 OA/310/01094/2017
facts, it was remitted to the appellate authority to impose
appropriate punishment”.
29. We deem it appropriate to refer the law laid down by the
Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India
Hon’ble Apex Court in ,
reported in (2019) 15 SCC 786, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed as under:-
"5. It is trite to say that the domain of the courts on the
issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. It is the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, which
decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind the
seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would
Ahmedabad not imply that if the punishment is so
disproportionate Bench that it shocks the conscience of
the court the courts are denuded of the authority to
interfere with the same. Normally even in such cases it
may be appropriate to remit the matter back for
consideration by the disciplinary/appellate authority.
However, one other cause for interference can be where
the plea raised is of parity in punishment but then the
prerequisite would be that the parity has to be in the
nature of charges made and held against the delinquent
employee and the conduct of the employee post the
incident. It is the latter aspect which is sought to be
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by
relying upon the judgment in Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P.
[Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P., (2013) 3 SCC 73 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 476] On this very aspect the learned counsel
for the respondents drew out attention to a subsequent
judgment in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh
(2013) 12 SCC 372 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 159] which had
taken note of the earlier judgment referred to aforesaid.
6. There is really no difference in the proposition, which
is sought to be propounded except that in the latter
judgment the principles have been succinctly
summarized in the last paragraph of the judgment,
which read as under: [ Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v.
Rajendra Singh , (2013) 12 SCC 372 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
159] , SCC p. 382, para 19) "
19. The principles discussed above can be summed up

26 OA/310/01094/2017
and summarized as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an
enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a
particular case is essentially the domain of the
departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the
quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be
awarded, as this function is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to Ahmedabad
Bench interfere with the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty
is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set
aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of
charges framed against the delinquent employee, the
appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back
to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The
court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the
penalty in such a case.......".
Union of India v. R.K. Sharma
30. In [(2001) 9 SCC 592], the
Hon’ble Apex Court explained the observations made in
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India
[ , (1987) 4 SCC 611] observing that if
the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or
strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference.
However, the said observations in [ Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India ,
(1987) 4 SCC 611] are not to be taken to mean that a court
can, while exercising the power

27 OA/310/01094/2017
of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely
because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate.
It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face,
show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial
review, and courts should not interfere merely on
compassionate grounds. Thus, it is well settled principle of
law that Courts may interfere with the order of punishment
passed by the disciplinary authority if the punishment
awarded to any delinquent is found to be shockingly
disproportionate to the charge levelled against him.
31. In view of the foregoing discussion, the reasons
recorded hereinabove and the settled principles governing
judicial review of the quantum of punishment, we are of the
considered view that the penalty of “Removal from
Engagement” imposed upon the applicant is unduly harsh
and disproportionate to the misconduct proved. The penalty,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, is so excessive
that it shocks the conscience of the Tribunal. We are,
therefore, inclined to interfere with the impugned orders to

28 OA/310/01094/2017
the limited extent of the quantum of punishment.
Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Disciplinary
Authority for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment
alone, without reopening the findings recorded in the
disciplinary proceedings.
32. In the result, the present Original Application is partly
allowed in the following terms:
(i) The order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority imposing the major penalty of “Removal from
Engagement” upon the applicant is hereby quashed and set
aside. Consequently, the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by
the Appellate Authority confirming the said penalty is also
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The matter is remitted to the competent Disciplinary
Authority for fresh consideration, strictly confined to the
question of the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon
the applicant. The findings recorded in the disciplinary
proceedings shall not be reopened.

29 OA/310/01094/2017
(iii) The Disciplinary Authority shall complete the aforesaid
exercise within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate the
decision to the applicant forthwith.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
08.10.2026
mas

Digitally signed
by M A SUNDAR
Date:
2026.10.16
13:17:34 +05'30'
M A
SUNDAR