EPFO Employee’s Compulsory Retirement Stands After Repeated Lateness, Unauthorized Absence And Failure To Follow Orders: CAT

The applicant, an EPFO employee who had served in clerical and senior assistant roles, challenged disciplinary proceedings culminating in compulsory retirement on 27 August 2010, a separate penalty of censure imposed on 5 May 2010, and the appellate order dated 2 August 2011.

The major-penalty proceedings concerned allegations including habitual late attendance, unauthorised absence, failure to perform assigned work, and non-compliance with directions of superior officers. The Inquiry Officer found three charges fully proved and three partly proved.

The Tribunal’s earlier dismissal of the O.A. was set aside by the Delhi High Court because it had been made ex parte, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication without any view on the merits. After restoration, the Tribunal heard the matter afresh.

The Tribunal applied the principle that, in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, it does not act as an appellate authority over the findings of the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority. Interference is limited to cases involving procedural illegality, breach of natural justice, findings based on no evidence, or a punishment so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience.

The charges were framed under Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to EPFO employees through Regulation 27 of the EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962.

The separate censure proceeding was stated to have been conducted under Rule 12 of the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given an opportunity to defend himself, an Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry, the inquiry report had been supplied, and the applicant’s representation had been considered; it therefore found no established procedural or natural-justice defect.

It treated the misconduct as a persistent pattern—not an isolated lapse—relying on the record of repeated late attendance and unauthorised absence, failure to discharge assigned duties, and non-compliance with directions despite warnings.

It also noted that the applicant’s duties involved processing and handling provident-fund claims, and that his absence and work failures allegedly delayed claims and required redistribution of work.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that compulsory retirement was not shown to be shockingly disproportionate. It found no demonstrated illegality or procedural irregularity in the separate censure proceedings and declined to substitute its view for that of the competent authorities.

It dismissed the O.A., rejecting the challenge to the disciplinary proceedings, the compulsory-retirement order dated 27 August 2010, the censure order dated 5 May 2010, and the appellate order dated 2 August 2011.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.