Compulsory retirement was disproportionate after 30 years’ service; voluntary retirement and retiral benefits were directed.

The appellant was appointed as an Additional Assistant Engineer on 19 November 1977 and was subsequently proceeded against in a disciplinary inquiry involving five charges.

The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority, resulting in an order of removal from service dated 16 May 2007.

On appeal, the punishment of removal was substituted with compulsory retirement, and the appellant was stated to be entitled to compassionate pension by order dated 4 January 2008.

The appellant challenged that order in a writ petition filed in 2008.

During its pendency, he attained the age of superannuation in 2014; by then, he had completed more than 30 years of service.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Although the respondent-Board proposed payment of compassionate pension, the Government did not approve the proposal, and the appellant consequently received no such pension.

In the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant contended that the penalty was disproportionate and undertook not to claim arrears of salary or full pension for the entire period, seeking 25% pension arrears from 30 June 2014.

Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement, imposed after the appellant had completed more than 30 years of service, was disproportionate to the charges proved against him.

Whether the appellant should be permitted to retire voluntarily in lieu of compulsory retirement and be granted pension and other retiral benefits on that basis.

Whether the appellant was entitled to pension arrears at 25% from the date of superannuation and full pension thereafter.

The Court applied the principle of proportionality in judicial review of disciplinary punishment, holding that the penalty must correspond to the seriousness of the misconduct and the surrounding circumstances, including the employee’s length of service.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 11294 of 2025), decided on 11 June 2026, which held that dismissal is the severest disciplinary penalty, has serious consequences for the employee and dependants, permanently affects the service record, and should be reserved for misconduct of the most serious nature.

The Court also applied the principle that, where the punishment is found excessive, appropriate relief may be fashioned by modifying the penalty and moulding the consequential pensionary relief in accordance with the employee’s undertaking and the circumstances of the case.

The Court examined the charges and found that they did not involve financial irregularity or embezzlement.

Although the appellate authority had already considered removal too harsh and substituted compulsory retirement, the Court held that compulsory retirement was still disproportionate because the appellant had rendered more than 30 years of service and the charges were not of the gravest nature.

Applying the Supreme Court’s emphasis on reserving the severest penalties for the most serious misconduct, the Court granted further leniency by treating the appellant as having voluntarily retired from the date of removal, namely 16 May 2007.

The pensionary relief was limited in accordance with the appellant’s undertaking not to claim salary arrears and not to insist on full pension from the date of superannuation.

The respondent-Board was directed to treat the appellant as having voluntarily retired with effect from 16 May 2007, in lieu of compulsory retirement.

His service was to be reckoned from 19 November 1977 to 30 June 2014.

The respondents were directed to pay pension at 25% of the admissible amount from 30 June 2014 to 31 July 2026, and full pension from 1 August 2026 onwards.

The appellant was also held entitled to other retiral benefits payable upon voluntary retirement, if not already paid.