Departmental dismissal cannot rest solely on a coerced confession without corroborating evidence.

The applicant, who served as an Assistant/Assistant (Accounts) at the Embassy of India, Seoul from 5 August 2005 to 30 September 2008, was proceeded against under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for alleged defalcation of Korean Won 43,269,861 through 25 cheques.

The charges alleged inflation of cheque amounts, incorrect cash-book entries, failure to reconcile accounts and forgery of the DDO’s signatures.

The applicant denied responsibility for the accounts, contending that the DDO was responsible for the custody of cheque books, cash, cash-book maintenance, reconciliation and supervision.

The Inquiry Officer found all 25 charges proved on 5 May 2017.

After considering the applicant’s representations and the advice of the Union Public Service Commission, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service on 2 November 2021; a consequential order followed on 5 November 2021.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order were vitiated by procedural violations, including non-supply of the witness list, delay in completion of the inquiry and alleged non-compliance with Rules 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Whether the findings of guilt were sustainable when the Inquiry Officer allegedly relied substantially on confessional statements said to have been obtained under duress and when the forensic evidence did not establish that the applicant forged the DDO’s signatures.

Whether the applicant was selectively penalised and denied equal treatment when the DDO and Head of Chancery, who were allegedly responsible for supervision and custody of the financial records, were exonerated.

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service was disproportionate and liable to be set aside on the ground that it shocked the conscience of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, namely review for illegality, irrationality/perversity, procedural impropriety including violation of natural justice, and disproportionality.

It considered the procedure governing major-penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, including the requirement under Rule 14(24) that an inquiry ordinarily be completed within six months, with extensions supported by recorded reasons.

The Tribunal relied on Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2015) 16 SCC 415, for the principle that disciplinary proceedings should ordinarily be completed within a reasonable period, generally not exceeding one year absent justification.

It also relied on Ramu Appa Mahapatra v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 608/2013, decided on 4 February 2025, for the rule that an extra-judicial confession is weak evidence, must be voluntary and credible, and ordinarily requires corroboration before it can safely support a finding of guilt.

The Tribunal further applied the principles of natural justice, equal treatment and proportionality in administrative punishment.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s alleged confessions could not safely sustain the findings because they were stated to have been obtained under duress and were not adequately corroborated by independent prosecution evidence.

It considered the applicant’s position in the institutional hierarchy and found it significant that the senior officers responsible for the custody of cheque books, maintenance of accounts and supervision had been exonerated, while the applicant, a subordinate Assistant, was made the sole scapegoat.

The Tribunal also found that the failure to furnish the witness list with the charge memorandum materially impaired the applicant’s ability to defend himself, thereby violating natural justice.

The prolonged inquiry, which took approximately two and a half years to conclude and nearly nine years from initiation to final punishment, was treated as inconsistent with the time discipline contemplated by Rule 14(24) and Prem Nath Bali.

Applying the principles of judicial review, the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings suffered from procedural impropriety and that dismissal was grossly disproportionate and egregious in the circumstances.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant as Assistant Section Officer from the date of his removal, with full consequential benefits, within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal held that the reliance on an allegedly coerced and uncorroborated confession, failure to supply the witness list, excessive delay and disproportionate treatment rendered the disciplinary action unsustainable.

No order as to costs was made.