Disproportionate penalty for minor infraction mandates reconsideration by disciplinary authority.

The Applicant, while working as GDS BPM, Vembattur B.O., was charged on October 17, 2014, under Rule 10 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, for failing to examine the contents of a B.O bag and not reporting the non-receipt of a B.O slip and error entry dated June 27, 2012

Initially, the 3rd Respondent imposed a punishment of censure on February 26, 2014

However, the 2nd Respondent, acting as the appellate authority, reviewed this order on August 25, 2014, under Rule 19 of GDS(C&E) Rules, 2011, and directed the 3rd Respondent to conduct a de-novo trial from the stage of issuing a fresh charge sheet for the same allegation, without providing notice to the Applicant

The Applicant contended that no financial mistake was committed and that a punishment had already been imposed for the same allegation

During the de-novo inquiry, the Applicant admitted to the incident but not the allegation, which the Inquiry Officer construed as an admission

Consequently, the 3rd Respondent imposed the major punishment of removal from engagement on the Applicant on June 30, 2015

The Applicant's subsequent appeal dated September 25, 2015, to the 2nd Respondent, was rejected via order dated August 29, 2016, following a direction from the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal

The Respondents asserted that the de-novo proceedings were conducted as per rules, within the six-month period, and that the Applicant admitted the charge in writing, justifying the removal due to the grave nature of the offense, which involved a speed post article containing a passport

1. Whether the punishment of removal from engagement imposed on the Applicant for the alleged misconduct is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence

2. Whether the de-novo inquiry initiated by the 2nd Respondent was procedurally flawed due to lack of notice to the Applicant

3. Whether the rejection of the Applicant's appeal without considering the points raised constituted a miscarriage of justice

The court primarily applied Rule 19 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, concerning the appellate authority's power to review and direct de-novo proceedings

It also relied on the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) and reaffirmed in Union of India v. Const. Sunil Kumar (2023), stating that judicial review allows interference with punishment if it is 'strikingly disproportionate' or 'shocks the conscience of the court'

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Applicant had admitted the incident, which could limit the scope of judicial review

However, it found the punishment of removal from service to be "grossly disproportionate" to the illegality committed by the Applicant, especially considering that the 2nd Respondent had initially accorded only a minor penalty of censure

The Court applied the principle from Supreme Court judgments which allows intervention if the punishment "shocks the conscience of the court" or is "strikingly disproportionate"

Given the Applicant's retirement, the Tribunal directed the respondent authority to reconsider the appeal dated September 25, 2015, and impose a proportionate penalty other than removal from service, rather than substituting a lesser penalty itself

The Tribunal concluded that the punishment of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the offence

Consequently, it remitted the matter back to the respondent authority, directing them to reconsider the Applicant's appeal dated September 25, 2015, and to consider imposing a proportionate penalty, specifically a penalty other than removal from service

This exercise was to be completed within two months from the date of receipt of the order