Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to procedural fairness and excludes re-appreciation of evidence.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was served a charge memo in 2009 for misconduct committed during 2003–2008, including failure to maintain accounts, unauthorized retention of excess cash by showing false liabilities, and procedural lapses in savings bank withdrawals.

An initial inquiry led to compulsory retirement, but an appellate authority ordered a de novo inquiry in 2013 due to procedural concerns.

The second inquiry found the applicant guilty of three out of four charges.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority again imposed compulsory retirement in 2017.

On appeal and subsequent revision, the penalty was modified to a reduction in pay by six stages for five years, eventually allowing for increments and removing the postponing effect on future pay.

The applicant challenged these orders, alleging violation of natural justice (non-supply of documents), delay in proceedings, and invidious discrimination.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the violation of principles of natural justice due to the non-supply of certain defense documents.

2. Whether the modified punishment imposed on the applicant was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

3. Whether the applicant was subjected to invidious discrimination in comparison to other delinquent officials.

4. Whether the respondents are required to regularize the periods the applicant spent out of service under Fundamental Rule 54.

The Tribunal applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226/Article 311 of the Constitution, as elucidated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which restricts the Tribunal from acting as an appellate authority or re-appreciating evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on "no evidence".

It followed State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao, holding that the adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed if "some legal evidence" exists.

The Tribunal also referenced Fundamental Rule (FR) 54 regarding the regularization of pay and allowances for periods of absence following the setting aside of dismissal or compulsory retirement.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were followed as the prosecution provided all 31 relied-upon documents; the non-supply of three defense documents was justified as their retention period had expired and they were not part of the prosecution's case.

Regarding delay, the Tribunal noted that the prolongation was partly attributable to the applicant's requests for time and the filing of bias petitions.

On proportionality, the Tribunal observed that the charges involved serious financial mismanagement, and the revisional authority had already significantly mitigated the penalty to ensure no loss in pension or future increments.

The plea of discrimination was rejected because the cited precedents involved "supervisory lapses" or "contributory negligence" by retired officials, whereas the applicant’s case involved "serious financial misconduct".

Finally, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had yet to pass a final order under FR 54 regarding the applicant’s 5.5 years of absence.

However, it directed the 1st Respondent to take a final decision on treating the periods of absence (01.04.2012 to 19.05.2015 and 28.02.2017 to 31.07.2019) under FR 54 after affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard, latest by 30.04.2026, in view of her retirement on 31.05.2026.

No costs were awarded.