### Compulsory Retirement Based on Procedural Irregularities and Disproportionate Punishment Quashed for Violating Natural Justice Principles

The applicant, a Scientist-D at the Defence Terrain Research Laboratory (DRDO), was served a Charge Memorandum on 30.11.2018 alleging three counts of misconduct: unauthorized foreign travel/participation in conferences (Article I), unauthorized publications and communication of confidential info (Article II), and unauthorized employment as a visiting fellow (Article III).

Initially, an Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on 28.11.2019, but the Disciplinary Authority (DA) ordered a "further inquiry" under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules without sharing the first report.

In the second report dated 19.06.2020, the IO found Article I "proved" (based on the applicant's admission with explanation) but Articles II and III "not proved".

The DA issued a disagreement note on 10.09.2020 regarding the exonerated charges and subsequently imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement on 05.11.2020.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically regarding the non-supply of the first inquiry report and non-compliance with Rules 14(18) and 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

2. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charge.

Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which govern the procedure for imposing major penalties and the action to be taken on inquiry reports.

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, establishing that orders by statutory functionaries must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by subsequent explanations.

State of U.P. v. S.K. Sharma, which mandates that the Inquiring Authority must question the delinquent on incriminating circumstances under Rule 14(18), failing which the proceedings are vitiated if prejudice is caused.

The "proportionality" doctrine from Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran and Union of India v. Parma Nanda was used to determine if the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

The Tribunal found that while the DA had technically placed the defense statement before the Raksha Mantri and provided the disagreement note, substantial procedural lapses occurred.

Specifically, the applicant was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to lead oral evidence or explain incriminating circumstances, violating the mandatory nature of Rule 14(18) as interpreted in S.K. Sharma.

Although Article I regarding foreign travel was proven by admission, the IO had specifically noted that the travels were for technical tasks pursued in collaboration with universities.

Most critically, the Tribunal noted that the most serious allegations (Articles II and III involving confidentiality and unauthorized employment) were not established by the IO.

The DA failed to adequately justify the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement when the proven misconduct was restricted only to procedural lapses in travel under Article I.

The O.A. was partially allowed; the impugned order dated 05.11.2020 imposing compulsory retirement was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The issue of consequential benefits and back wages was directed to be considered upon the conclusion of any fresh inquiry. No order as to costs was made.