Dismissal for supervisory negligence without proof of malafide intent or personal gain is shockingly disproportionate.

The Petitioner, a Station Master Grade-II at Mumbai Port Trust (BPT) with 32 years of service, was dismissed on 28 January 1997 following a departmental enquiry.

The chargesheet alleged that he caused delays (3 to 27 days) in the placement of railway wagons for delivery during June and July 1994.

This delay purportedly caused excessive hiring charges payable by BPT to Trunk Railways and reduced demurrage revenue from consignees.

The Petitioner contended that Senior Trains Clerks and Assistant Station Masters (ASM) were responsible for placements.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) issued a Part-I Award upholding the fairness of the enquiry and its findings, and a Part-II Award confirming the proportionality of the dismissal.

The Petitioner challenged both awards via this Writ Petition.

Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the CGIT regarding the Petitioner’s guilt were perverse.

Whether the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct under the doctrine of proportionality.

The Court applied the Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 and the BPT Employees (Classification, Control and Appeals) Regulations, 1976 regarding disciplinary proceedings.

It relied on the doctrine of proportionality and the scope of judicial review under Article 227 as established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which permits interference if a punishment "shocks the conscience" of the Court.

Furthermore, it considered Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh regarding the court's power to substitute punishment in rare cases to shorten litigation.

The court distinguished Coimbatore District Central Coop Bank v. Employees Association, asserting that judicial restraint does not preclude intervention in cases of unconscionable penalties.

The Court upheld the Part-I Award, finding no perversity as the Petitioner admitted to withholding wagons for consignees with outstanding bills, failing in his supervisory duty as Station Master.

However, regarding the Part-II Award, the Court found the CGIT’s reasoning flawed.

It noted major mitigating factors: (a) there was no allegation of "ill motive," favoritism, or personal monetary gain/gratification.

(b) the BPT failed to chargesheet the ASM or clerks who were directly responsible for placements, making the Petitioner's punishment for "supervisory failure" discriminatory.

(c) the Petitioner had 32 years of unblemished service.

The Court determined that while the outcome of his actions (financial loss) was wrong, his intention—forcing payment of dues—was not malafide.

Consequently, the loss of all retirement benefits after three decades of service was deemed unconscionable.

The Court held that the dismissal was shockingly disproportionate and substituted it with the penalty of "compulsory retirement" effective from 28 January 1997.

The Respondent was directed to pay all retirement benefits and arrears to the Petitioner, now an octogenarian, within three months.

The Petition was partly allowed.