Disciplinary findings rejecting an exonerating inquiry report without reasoned analysis are perverse and unsustainable.

The petitioner, a Municipal Engineer at Virudhunagar Municipality, faced a 2011 charge memorandum containing seven charges concerning illegal sewer connections.

The Enquiry Officer found none of the charges proved, but the disciplinary authority disagreed in respect of Charge Nos. 3, 4 (in part) and 6, sought the petitioner’s explanation, and in 2019 imposed a pension deduction of ₹1,000 for two years.

The petitioner had joined the Municipality on 28 July 2010, applied for medical leave on 29 December 2010, was suspended on 14 January 2011, and was reinstated on 22 July 2011; he retired on 31 May 2016.

He challenged the punishment and sought retirement benefits from 1 June 2016.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority’s decision to differ from the Enquiry Officer and find charges proved was sustainable when it gave no reasoned consideration to the petitioner’s explanation and relied on alleged connections identified during his suspension.

2. Whether the resulting punishment and withholding of the petitioner’s pensionary and other retirement benefits could be sustained.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the disciplinary decision.

A disciplinary authority that disagrees with an Enquiry Officer’s findings must provide reasons for its conclusion and engage with the employee’s explanation; a conclusion unsupported by reasons may be treated as perverse.

A finding must also have a basis in the charges and the material relied upon.

The judgment cites no separate statute or judicial precedent.

The Enquiry Officer had found no evidence that the petitioner provided illegal connections, and the principal service connections predated his appointment at Virudhunagar.

The disciplinary authority relied on connections identified during inspections on 21 and 29 January 2011, a period when the petitioner was under suspension, without addressing his explanation or giving reasons for rejecting the Enquiry Officer’s findings.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had not been specifically charged with providing connections after joining the Municipality and that the inspection material had not been shown to have been furnished to him.

In these circumstances, the disciplinary authority’s finding lacked a proper basis and was perverse; the ensuing punishment could not stand.

It directed the respondents to release the petitioner’s pensionary and other retirement benefits in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 1 June 2016, within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.