Judicial review cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence absent procedural illegality, perversity, or findings based on no evidence.

The applicant, a Tailor (MCM) posted at Ordnance Parachute Factory, Kanpur, was found absent from his place of duty during a surprise inspection conducted on 18 October 2019 between 15:35 and 15:55 hours.

He claimed that he had gone home during the lunch break, suddenly fallen ill, and telephonically informed his Sectional In-charge, Shri B.K. Pal, at about 3:00 p.m. that he could not resume duty.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charge memorandum alleged unauthorized absence and referred to the applicant’s past conduct.

After an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service with effect from 9 November 2020.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority modified the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement, taking a lenient view in light of the overall circumstances and the applicant’s past service record.

The applicant challenged both orders before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the disciplinary inquiry and the findings of unauthorized absence were vitiated by procedural irregularity, denial of natural justice, bias, or absence of sufficient evidence, particularly because the doctor was not examined and the applicant’s alleged telephonic intimation was not accepted?

Whether the disciplinary authorities were justified in treating the applicant’s absence on 18 October 2019 as unauthorized despite his plea of sudden illness and prior medical permission?

Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement, substituted for removal by the Appellate Authority, was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct?

The proceedings were examined under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the disciplinary framework under the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, including Rule 14 concerning major-penalty inquiries.

The Tribunal applied the settled doctrine that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining the decision-making process, compliance with natural justice and statutory procedure, jurisdiction, and whether the findings are supported by some evidence; the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate authority.

This principle was drawn from B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357, and S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, 2013 (7) Scale 417.

Interference with punishment is warranted only where it is wholly disproportionate or “shocks the conscience” of the Court.

The authorities were also entitled to consider the employee’s past service record while determining the appropriate penalty, particularly where the charge memorandum referred to such conduct.

The Tribunal held that the inquiry complied substantially with the prescribed procedure and that the applicant had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself.

The contemporaneous inspection report established that he was absent from his workplace, while the alleged telephonic intimation was unsupported by any written leave application or other contemporaneous record.

The Tribunal considered it significant that the Sectional In-charge, who was present during the inspection, did not inform the inspecting team of the alleged prior intimation and signed the inspection report recording the applicant’s absence; his later statement during the inquiry was therefore insufficient, by itself, to establish authorized absence.

The earlier medical permission did not constitute blanket authorization to remain absent on 18 October 2019, and no prescription, treatment record, or medical certificate specifically dated that day was produced.

The non-examination of the doctor did not invalidate the inquiry because the central charge was unauthorized absence, proved through the inspection record, and the medical defence was otherwise uncorroborated.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Tribunal declined to reassess the evidence.

It further held that the applicant’s repeated prior instances of unauthorized absence justified consideration of his past conduct and that compulsory retirement, already substituted for removal by the Appellate Authority, was not shockingly disproportionate.

The applicant failed to establish that his illness or alleged telephonic intimation authorized his absence.

The penalty of compulsory retirement was not disproportionate, particularly in view of his past service record and repeated instances of unauthorized absence.

The challenge to the Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 5 November 2020 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 25 March 2021 was therefore rejected; the Original Application was dismissed, all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.