Disciplinary findings are perverse when they ignore admissions and rely on an unpleaded case.

The petitioner, a retired Additional Superintendent of Police, challenged a Government Order imposing a deduction of ₹1,000 per month from his pension for six months, following disciplinary proceedings arising from a woman Inspector’s sexual-harassment complaint and a separate complaint by a male Inspector.

The judgment states that the Enquiry Officer found Charges 1 and 3 proved, but its subsequent analysis identifies the adverse finding under review as the finding on Charge 2: that the petitioner failed to act on the male Inspector’s complaint.

The petitioner sought to have the punishment set aside and also claimed service-related and monetary relief.

1. Whether the finding that the petitioner failed to act on the male Inspector’s complaint was sustainable in light of the complaint, the petitioner’s response, and the complainant’s evidence.

2. Whether the disciplinary order imposing a pension deduction could stand when the adverse finding was based on an unsustainable or perverse assessment of the evidence.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent. It applies the principles that a disciplinary finding must be supported by the record and cannot stand if it is perverse or reached without considering material evidence.

An Enquiry Officer cannot construct a case that was neither advanced by the Department nor sought by the complainant.

The Court also considered whether the petitioner’s response to the complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

The male Inspector’s complaint sought the woman Inspector’s transfer, rather than disciplinary action against her. The petitioner told the complainant that he had referred the matter to the Deputy Inspector General, and the complainant acknowledged in cross-examination that the petitioner had acted on his complaint.

The Court held that the Enquiry Officer could not treat the absence of a show-cause notice to the woman Inspector as misconduct when that was not the case advanced by the Department or requested by the complainant.

It further concluded that the finding failed to account for the complainant’s admission and was perverse and legally unsustainable.

It awarded no costs. Although the petitioner had sought additional service and monetary benefits, the judgment does not expressly grant those claims.