Disciplinary orders quashed for violating principles of natural justice and imposing punishments disproportionate to established misconduct.

The applicant, a Postman with 26 years of service, was issued a Charge Memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on November 20, 2021.

The charges involved burning undelivered postal articles and forging an addressee's signature.

During the inquiry, the applicant submitted an apology and admission of guilt, which he later claimed was done under duress and lack of understanding.

Based on this admission and a video clip, the Disciplinary Authority initially imposed a penalty of reduction in pay scale for two years on April 1, 2022.

the Revising Authority subsequently enhanced this penalty to removal from service via orders dated September 29, 2022, and August 7, 2023.

The applicant challenged these orders, alleging procedural violations and lack of evidence.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the enhanced penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct

Rule 14(18), which mandates that the Inquiring Authority must question the government servant on circumstances appearing against him if he has not examined himself.

The Tribunal relied on the principles of judicial review established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which hold that courts may interfere if the inquiry violates statutory regulations, principles of natural justice, or if the findings are based on "no evidence" or are "patently perverse".

It also considered the "Doctrine of Proportionality" as discussed in Union of India v. Subrata Nath regarding the severity of punishment.

The Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as the applicant was not given the opportunity to explain circumstances appearing against him.

The court noted that the findings were based almost exclusively on the applicant's admission of guilt without a proper assessment of the listed evidence or a formal discussion of the merits.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant, being a low-ranking employee with limited education, may not have understood the gravity of the charges when submitting his apology.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant was denied a fair hearing, constituting a violation of natural justice.

Furthermore, the Tribunal scrutinized the quantum of punishment, finding that the jump from a pay reduction to "Removal from Service" was "too harsh" and "shocks the conscience" under the doctrine of proportionality.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the Inquiry Report (Dec 21, 2021), the Penalty Order (Apr 1, 2022), and the subsequent orders by the Revising Authority (Sep 2022 and Aug 2023). The respondents were directed to conduct a de novo inquiry from the stage of the Charge Sheet dated November 20, 2021, ensuring strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and providing the applicant a due opportunity to defend himself. The O.A. was partly allowed.