DISPROPORTIONATE PENALTY: Dismissal for financial irregularity warrants reconsideration of lesser punishment.

The applicant, Sube Ram, an ex-GDS BPM, was removed from service via an order dated June 30, 2009, for misappropriating ₹24,000.

He challenged this punishment before the Tribunal, which partly allowed his O.A. on March 25, 2014, remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty's quantum due to the applicant's service length and record.

The respondents then challenged this order in the Hon’ble High Court, which, on April 9, 2015, modified the Tribunal's order, suggesting that if the Disciplinary Authority believed a lesser punishment could achieve the disciplinary purpose, considering the applicant's service length, past record, and social background, it could impose one.

Despite this, the Disciplinary Authority upheld the removal from service via an order dated August 14, 2015.

Subsequent appeals and revision petitions by the applicant were rejected on January 22, 2018, and June 14, 2018, respectively, reaffirming the initial punishment without considering the judicial directives.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority and subsequent appellate/revisional authorities erred in re-imposing the same penalty of 'removal from service' without properly considering the directions from the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

2. Whether the penalty of 'removal from service' was disproportionate to the offence committed by the applicant, especially given the directions to consider lesser punishment options.

The Tribunal applied the principles of judicial review regarding proportionality of punishment and adherence to judicial directives.

It referenced Rule 9 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (C&E) Rules, 2011, which allows for different penalties.

The court's primary stance was that disciplinary authorities must genuinely reconsider punishments and apply their minds in accordance with superior judicial orders, especially when such orders suggest exploring less severe penalties based on an employee's service record and socio-economic background, ensuring the penalty is not disproportionate to the offense.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had re-imposed the same penalty of 'removal from service' without genuinely considering the factors highlighted in the Tribunal's order of March 25, 2014, and the Hon’ble High Court's modified order of April 9, 2015.

The Tribunal had previously observed that the applicant belonged to a poor stratum of society, had 22 years of service, and admitted the charge, and that the harshest penalty was imposed based on an ex-parte inquiry without considering his unblemished record.

The High Court had explicitly directed the Disciplinary Authority to consider if a lesser punishment could achieve the disciplinary purpose, keeping in view the length of service, past record, and social background.

The impugned order of August 14, 2015, merely reiterated the earlier decision without reference to these judicial observations, and subsequent appeals and revisions similarly failed to apply due mind.

The Tribunal held that this demonstrated an inability to take a holistic and considered view, making the penalty disproportionate and necessitating reconsideration for alternate, less severe options to ensure organizational discipline without adversely affecting the applicant's livelihood.

The O.A. was allowed, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the quantum of punishment awarded to the applicant within eight weeks from the date of the order, observing that a less severe penalty option than dismissal from service should be considered to maintain a balance of equity and ensure proportionate action.