KANWAL SINGH vs M/o Labour

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
Central Administrativ
e Tribunal
ew Delhi
Principal Bench, Ne

O.A. No.1188/2
012
Reserved on: 01.09.2026
Pronounced on: 22.10.2026
Hon
Hon’

’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member
’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Memb
(J)
ber (A)
Kanw
Shri
Distt
wal Singh, Aged about 55 years,
, S/o Late
Badlu Ram, R/o VPO Garhi Har
t. Gurgaon (Haryana) -123505.
rsaru,
...Applicant
(By A

Advocate: Mr. Sampanna Pani )
Versus

Union of India through The
Ministry of Labour, Govt. of Ind
Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi.
1. U
Secretary,
dia, Shram
M
S
2. T
The Additional Central Provid
Commissioner (DL & UK), E
Provident Fund Organization, M
Labour, Govt. of India, 28, Co
Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Are
dent Fund
Employees
Ministry of
C
P
L
C
1
ommunity
ea, Delhi-
10052.
3. T
The Regional Provident
Commissioner-I, Delhi-North, E
Provident Fund Organization, M
Labour, Govt. of India, 28, Co
Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Are
Fund
Employees
Ministry of
C
P
L
C
1

ommunity
ea, Delhi-
10052.

...Respondents
(By A
Advocate: Mr. Satpal Singh, Mr
r. Ashish Rai)
Page 1 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, M
Member (A)

In
n the present Original Applicatio
on, filed under Section 19 of
the Adm
ministrative Tribunals Act, 1985
, the applicant has prayed for
the follo
owing reliefs:
"(
3.
(a) Quash and set aside the impugne
ed orders Annexure A-1, A-2 & A-
.
(b
be
b) Direct the respondents to reinstate
e the applicant with consequential
enefits.
(c
pr
c) Pass any other or further order o
or directions as deemed just and
of the case and Award Cost also."
roper in the facts and circumstances o
2. T
The applicant had initially
approached this Tribunal
challeng
ging the disciplinary proceeding
gs initiated against him, the
order d
dated 27.08.2010 whereby th
he penalty of compulsory
retireme
ent from service was imposed
upon him, the order dated
05.05.20
010 whereby the penalty of cens
ure was imposed upon him in
separate
e disciplinary proceedings, and
d the appellate order dated
02.08.20
011. The Original Application w
was initially dismissed by this
Tribuna
l vide order dated 25.04.201
9. The applicant thereafter
approac
hed the Hon’ble High Court of
f Delhi by filing W.P.(C) No.
16599/2
2023. Vide order dated 19.03.20
024, the Hon’ble High Court
set aside
e the orders dated 25.04.2019 an
nd 02.03.2020 passed by this
Tribuna
l and remanded the Origin
nal Application for fresh
adjudica
ation on merits. While doing s
so, the Hon’ble High Court
made it
clear that it had not expressed
any opinion on the merits of
Page 2 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
the matt
ter and that the earlier orders we
ere being set aside on account
of the
same having been passed ex
x parte. The applicant was
accordin
ngly afforded an opportunity to
o have his matter adjudicated
on merit
ts.
3. U
Upon remand, the Original Ap
pplication again came to be
dismisse
ed for non-prosecution vide
e order dated 17.01.2025.
Thereaft
fter, the applicant filed M.A
A. No. 3947/2025 seeking
condona
ation of delay in filing M.A. No.
. 3946/2025 for restoration of
the Orig
ginal Application. The said M
M.A. was allowed vide order
dated 1
8.02.2026 and O.A. No. 118
88/2012 was restored to its
original
number for fresh adjudication.
. The matter has accordingly
been hea
ard afresh.
4. T
The brief facts necessary for adju
udication of the present O.A.
are that
t the applicant was initially a
appointed as a Peon in the
Employ
ees’ Provident Fund Organisatio
on (EPFO) w.e.f. 24.03.1981
(F/N) a
and was thereafter appointed a
as a temporary LDC w.e.f.
01.04.19
982. He was promoted as U
UDC on ad hoc basis on
25.05.19
984 and subsequently promot
ted on regular basis w.e.f.
31.12.19
989. He was thereafter granted
Selection Grade/Time Bound
Promoti
ion w.e.f. 30.03.1999 and, durin
ng the course of his service,
worked
as SSA and Sr. SSA. The
disciplinary proceedings in
question
n were initiated against the a
applicant vide Memorandum
Page 3 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
dated 11
1.01.2007. Six Articles of Char
rge were framed against him.
The sub
bstance of the allegations was tha
at the applicant was a habitual
late-com
mer, remained absent from du
uty without obtaining prior
sanction
n of leave, failed to discharge the
e work assigned to him, failed
to comp
ply with the lawful directions
of his superior officers and
thereby
exhibited lack of devotion
to duty, misconduct and
insubord
dination, in violation of Rule 3(
1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS
(Conduc
ct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to
o the employees of EPFO by
virtue of
f Regulation 27 of the EPF (Sta
aff and Conditions of Service)
Regulati
ions, 1962.
5. T
The applicant submitted his expl
lanation to the charges. Since
the Dis
ciplinary Authority was not s
satisfied with the same, an
Inquiry
Officer was appointed and a r
regular departmental inquiry
was con
nducted. Upon conclusion of the
e inquiry, the Inquiry Officer
held Art
ticles of Charge I, V and VI as
fully proved and Articles II,
III and
IV as partly proved. The repor
rt of the Inquiry Officer was
supplied
d to the applicant and his repres
entation was duly considered
by the D
Disciplinary Authority. Thereafte
er, the Disciplinary Authority
passed t
the order dated 27.08.2010 imp
posing upon the applicant the
penalty
of compulsory retirement fr
rom service. The applicant
preferre
d an appeal against the said orde
er, which came to be rejected
by the
Appellate Authority vide orde
er dated 02.08.2011. In the
meantim
me, separate disciplinary proceed
dings had also been initiated
Page 4 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
against t
the applicant under Rule 12 of t
the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules,
1971 in
n respect of his continued late
attendance and unauthorized
absence
during the period July, 2009
9 to February, 2010. Upon
conclusi
ion of the said proceedings, the
e Disciplinary Authority, vide
order da
ated 05.05.2010, imposed upon h
him the penalty of “Censure”.
6. T
The principal grievance of the ap
plicant is that the punishment
of comp
pulsory retirement is disproporti
ionate to the charges levelled
against
him. It is contended that the a
allegations are not of such a
serious
nature as would justify the ext
treme penalty of compulsory
retireme
ent from service.
7. O
On the other hand, learned coun
nsel for the respondents has
opposed
d the O.A. and submitted that t
the applicant was a habitual
late-com
mer and had repeatedly remaine
ed absent from duty without
obtainin
ng sanction of leave. It is submi
itted that the misconduct was
not an is
solated or occasional lapse but c
continued over a considerable
period o
of time despite repeated warni
ings, office memoranda and
direction
ns issued by the superior author
rities. Learned counsel for the
respond
ents drew our attention to th
e instances of unauthorized
absence
and late attendance placed on
n record. It is submitted that
during t
the year 1991, 13 days were de
educted from the applicant’s
Earned
Leave on account of late atten
ndance and, during the year
1992, an
nother 19 days were deducted fo
r the same reason. During the
Page 5 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
period
from 01.01.2004 to 30.04.200
05, the applicant reportedly
attended
d office late on as many as 134 o
occasions. Further, a period of
55 days
from 01.03.2004 to 22.05.2006
6 was treated as unauthorized
absence
. During the period January, 2
2008 to June, 2009, 87 days
were de
ducted from Earned Leave on a
account of late attendance and
21 days
s on account of unauthorized a
absence. Again, during July,
2009 to
o February, 2010, a period o
of 72 days was treated as
unautho
orized absence.
8. T
The respondents have further re
elied upon various instances
demonst
trating the applicant’s alleged d
disobedience of the directions
issued b
by his superior officers. An
Office Memorandum dated
04.05.20
005 was issued to him on a
account of his habitual late
attendan
nce and absence without sanctio
oned leave, requiring him to
furnish
an explanation along with appl
lications for regularization of
the perio
od of unauthorized absence. Acc
cording to the respondents, no
reply w
was furnished by the applic
cant. Similarly, an Office
Memora
andum dated 03.08.2006 was iss
ued requiring the applicant to
explain
the discrepancy in the name of h
his wife appearing in different
service
records. The respondents submi
itted that the applicant failed
to furni
ish any reply thereto. The re
spondents have also placed
reliance
upon the directions issued by t
the Assistant Provident Fund
Commis
ssioner and other superior office
ers requiring the applicant to
clear pe
ending claims within the stipula
ated period. It is alleged that,
Page 6 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
instead
of complying with the direction
ns, the applicant returned the
memora
andum with inappropriate remark
ks. The respondents have also
referred
to the pending PF claims at
the applicant’s seat and the
complai
int/representation of the Section
n Supervisor alleging that the
applican
nt had declined to comply with
the directions of his superior
officers.
.
9. W
We have carefully considered the
e pleadings on record and the
material
l placed before us.
10. It
t is well settled that in judi
icial review of disciplinary
proceed
ings, the Tribunal does not sit a
as an appellate authority over
the find
dings recorded by the Inquiry
Officer or the Disciplinary
Authorit
ty. The scope of interference is
s limited to cases where the
proceed
ings have been conducted in
violation of the prescribed
procedu
ure, principles of natural justi
ce have been violated, the
findings
s are based on no evidence, or th
he punishment imposed is so
dispropo
ortionate to the misconduct prov
ved as to shock the conscience
of the C
Court/Tribunal.
11. In
n the present case, the disc
ciplinary proceedings were
conduct
ed pursuant to a formal charge
memorandum. The applicant
was aff
forded an opportunity to subm
mit his defence. An Inquiry
Officer
was appointed, the inquiry was
conducted and findings were
recorded
d on each of the Articles of Char
rge. Articles I, V and VI were
Page 7 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
held to b
be fully proved, while Articles I
II, III and IV were held to be
partly p
proved. The Inquiry Officer’s
report was supplied to the
applican
nt and his representation was co
onsidered by the Disciplinary
Authorit
ty before passing the order of pu
unishment.
12. W
We do not find any material on
n record to establish that the
applican
nt was denied reasonable oppor
rtunity of defending himself
during t
the disciplinary proceedings. No
o procedural infirmity of such
a natur
re has been demonstrated be
efore us as would warrant
interfere
ence with the disciplinary pr
roceedings or the findings
recorded
d therein. More importantly, the
e misconduct attributed to the
applican
nt cannot be viewed as an isolate
ed instance of late attendance
or occa
sional absence. The material p
placed before us indicates a
persisten
nt pattern of late attendance, una
authorized absence, failure to
attend to
o the assigned work and non-co
ompliance with the directions
of super
rior officers over a considerable p
period of time.
13. T
The nature of duties attached to t
the post held by the applicant
is also r
relevant. The applicant was work
king as SSA/Sr. SSA and was
entruste
d with duties relating, inter alia
, to receipt and processing of
claims,
forwarding of claims and o
ther correspondence to the
concern
ed sections, dispatch of claim
ms, initiation of action for
disposal
l of claims within the prescr
ribed time and updation of
member
r accounts. The respondents ha
ave specifically pleaded that
Page 8 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
repeated
d absence and failure to discharg
ge the assigned work resulted
in accum
mulation and delay in settlemen
nt of claims and required the
work to
o be redistributed amongst ot
ther employees. The record
further i
indicates that the applicant had b
been repeatedly cautioned and
memos
had been issued to him even pr
rior to initiation of the major
penalty
proceedings. Despite such w
warnings and administrative
action, t
the alleged conduct continued. In
n fact, during the pendency of
the maj
ajor penalty proceedings them
mselves, the applicant was
proceed
ed against separately for late
attendance and unauthorized
absence
for the period July, 2009 to
o February, 2010, ultimately
resulting
g in imposition of the penalty
of censure vide order dated
05.05.20
010. The subsequent conduct
t of the applicant assumes
significa
ance while examining whether
the penalty imposed in the
earlier d
disciplinary proceedings was w
wholly disproportionate. The
record,
as placed before us, does not in
ndicate that the applicant had
mended
his conduct despite repeated
opportunities and warnings.
Rather,
the subsequent disciplinary proc
ceedings demonstrate that the
issue of
f late attendance and unauthori
ized absence continued even
after init
tiation of the major penalty proc
ceedings.
14. T
The applicant has also allege
ed that the punishment of
compuls
sory retirement is excessive. We
e are unable to accept the said
contenti
ion in the facts and circumst
tances of the present case.
Compul
lsory retirement, though undoubt
tedly a major penalty, cannot
Page 9 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
be cons
sidered disproportionate merely
because the charges do not
involve
financial irregularity or m
moral turpitude. Persistent
indiscip
line, habitual unauthorized a
absence, failure to perform
assigned
d duties and deliberate disobedi
ience of lawful directions of
superior
r officers are matters which direc
ctly affect the functioning and
disciplin
ne of a public organisation.
15. In
n the present case, the material
on record discloses repeated
instance
es of the applicant’s failure t
to attend office punctually,
unautho
orized absence, accumulation
of official work and non-
complia
ance with directions issued b
y superior authorities. The
miscond
duct, therefore, cannot be charact
terized as a minor lapse.
16. W
We are also conscious of the
fact that the applicant had
rendered
d considerable length of service
e. However, length of service
by itself
f cannot efface repeated acts of
misconduct and indiscipline,
particula
arly when the employer had, o
on several occasions, brought
the defi
iciencies to the notice of the
employee and afforded him
opportun
nities to correct his conduct. W
We may also observe that the
Hon’ble
e High Court, while remanding
the matter vide order dated
19.03.20
024, expressly clarified that it ha
ad not expressed any opinion
on the m
merits of the impugned order o
or on the rival claims of the
parties.
The remand was necessitated o
only because the earlier order
of this T
Tribunal had been passed ex part
te, and the applicant was to be
Page 10 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
afforded
d an opportunity of being h
heard on merits. We have
accordin
ngly examined the matter afresh
on the basis of the pleadings
and mat
terial available on record.
17. O
On an overall consideration of
the matter, we find that the
findings
s recorded in the disciplinary p
proceedings are supported by
the mate
erial available on record and th
hat the applicant has failed to
establish
h any procedural infirmity, viol
lation of principles of natural
justice o
or perversity in the findings wa
arranting interference by this
Tribuna
l. As regards the order date
d 05.05.2010 imposing the
penalty
of “Censure”, the same relates
to a separate set of instances
concern
ing late attendance and unaut
thorized absence during the
period J
July, 2009 to February, 2010.
The respondents have stated
that a se
eparate disciplinary proceeding w
was initiated under Rule 12 of
the EPF
F Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971,
in which the applicant was
afforded
d an opportunity to defend him
mself and, upon conclusion
thereof,
the penalty of censure was imp
mposed. No material has been
placed
before us to demonstrate an
ny illegality or procedural
irregular
rity in the said proceedings w
warranting interference. The
Appella
te Authority has also considered
d the applicant’s challenge to
the pena
alty imposed upon him. We fin
nd no reason to substitute our
own vie
ew for that of the competent d
disciplinary authorities in the
absence
of any exceptional circum
mstance warranting judicial
interven
ntion.
Page 11 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T

Item No.30/C-2
O.A. No.1188/
/2012
18. In
n view of the foregoing discuss
sion, we find no merit in the
Original
l Application. The challenge to
the disciplinary proceedings,
the orde
er dated 27.08.2010 imposing
the penalty of compulsory
retireme
ent, the order dated 05.05.201
10 imposing the penalty of
censure
and the appellate order dated
d 02.08.2011 is accordingly
rejected
.
19. T
The Original Application is,
therefore, dismissed in the
aforesai
d terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any
y, shall also stand disposed of.
There sh
hall be no order as to costs.

Dr. Ana
and S Khati
mber (A)
R. N. Singh
Member (J)
Mem

/sb/

Page 12 of 12

SURA
J
BISH
T
SURA
J
BISH
T