Disciplinary punishment must be reconsidered when underlying irregularities predate the employee’s joining.

The petitioner, a clerk in the SC/ST Welfare Department, joined the SC/ST Welfare Office, Nawada, in March 2015 and was assigned charge of work previously handled by another clerk. Allegations were subsequently made regarding irregularities and defalcation in the distribution of scholarships to SC/ST students for the year 2012–13. The petitioner contended that the irregularities had occurred before he joined the office and that his signatures were obtained under pressure on certain documents and cheques.

A preliminary enquiry was conducted, followed by the petitioner’s suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings. Although the petitioner submitted his explanation and participated in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. After considering the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of termination/compulsory retirement by order dated 28 August 2017. The petitioner’s appeal and revision were rejected on 5 February 2018 and 23 July 2019 respectively. He thereafter approached the High Court seeking quashing of the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the findings of guilt recorded in the departmental proceedings were liable to be interfered with on the ground that the alleged irregularities preceded the petitioner’s joining and that the findings were unsupported by evidence?

Whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate and liable to be set aside or reconsidered, having regard to his status as a new incumbent and his limited role in the alleged irregularities?

Whether the disciplinary, appellate and revisional orders required quashing and the matter required remand to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration of punishment?

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of departmental disciplinary proceedings and service punishment. It held that where allegations of financial irregularity are established through documentary material and the relevant records were available before the disciplinary authority, the Court should not reappreciate the evidence or interfere merely because no oral evidence was recorded.

The Court further applied the principle of proportionality in disciplinary punishment, recognising that even where guilt is sustained, an excessive punishment may be reconsidered when the employee’s role, period of service, and surrounding circumstances justify such intervention.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court declined to interfere with the finding of guilt because the alleged defalcation was supported by documents, the preliminary enquiry report and the petitioner’s own admission that he had signed documents under pressure. The Court observed that the petitioner could not completely disclaim responsibility merely by asserting that he was unaware of the irregularities.

However, it distinguished the issue of guilt from the issue of punishment. The Court found it significant that the principal irregularities had occurred before the petitioner joined on 12 March 2015 and that he was a new incumbent who had taken charge from existing officials and colleagues. In these circumstances, the punishment of termination/compulsory retirement was considered exorbitant, particularly when the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice and his limited role had not been appropriately reflected in the punishment decision.

It accordingly set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28 August 2017, the Appellate Authority dated 5 February 2018, and the Revisional Authority dated 23 July 2019.

The matter was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order on punishment within 90 days, considering that the petitioner was a new incumbent, was not responsible for the earlier irregularities, and had submitted a reply to the second show-cause notice. The writ petition was consequently allowed to that limited extent.