Disciplinary penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of retiral benefits cannot be sustained without independent, reasoned consideration and parity with co-delinquents.

The Petitioner, former Director (Finance) of Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (SJVN), challenged a 2004 chargesheet and a 2009 order of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retiral benefits

The disciplinary proceedings arose from three payments (aggregating approx. INR 42.46 crore) released to M/s Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium (JHC) between 1996 and 1998, which the Respondent alleged were unauthorized ad-hoc advances

The Petitioner’s tenure ended on March 16, 2004, one day after the chargesheet was issued

Although the Inquiry Officer (IO) found the charges proved, the report was finalized without the Petitioner’s written brief due to a refused extension

Co-delinquents involved in the same transactions were either exonerated or given minor penalties

The court applied the principles of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that while courts do not act as appellate authorities, they must intervene if findings are based on "no evidence," ignore material documents, or are perversely disproportionate (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India; Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran)

It relied on the doctrine of parity, which mandates that co-delinquents in the same transaction shouldn't be singled out for harsher treatment without rational distinction (Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P.; M. Raghavelu v. Govt. of A.P.)

Regarding post-retirement jurisdiction, it referenced State Bank of India v. A.N. Gupta and UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, holding that the power to impose penalties after service must be founded upon specific statutory/regulatory provisions

The Court observed that the disciplinary authority failed to identify the specific legal source of power to impose dismissal and forfeiture of benefits five years after the Petitioner’s tenure ended

It found a procedural breach as the IO ignored the Petitioner's written brief despite a statement made to the High Court that it would be considered

Substantively, the Court noted that the Petitioner’s concurrence on the first two payments included specific recovery stipulations which were ignored by the IO, and the third payment was a Board-level decision for which the Petitioner had recorded objections

Furthermore, the Respondent failed to quantify any actual financial loss, especially since subsequent arbitration/settlement validated many of the contractor’s claims

The Court found the penalty "shockingly disproportionate" compared to the exoneration of technical officers and the CMD who approved the same payments

The Respondents were directed to release all retiral dues (gratuity, leave encashment, medical benefits) with 6% simple interest per annum within twelve weeks, failing which the interest rate would rise to 9%