Judicial review will not disturb disciplinary penalties supported by evidence and procedurally valid inquiries.

The applicant, widow of Late Shri Ashokbhai Patni, challenged the order dated 7 February 2017 imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement upon her husband, a Chowkidar in the NCC Directorate, Gujarat, under Rule 11(vii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The employee had previously received two minor penalties for unauthorised absence and subsequently remained absent for approximately 100 days from 18 January 2015 to 28 June 2015 without prior permission.

A charge-sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, alleging lack of devotion to duty under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

He participated in the departmental inquiry and admitted receipt and understanding of the charge-sheet, as well as failure to inform his superiors about his absence.

Although he produced medical certificates, those certificates covered only approximately 22 days of the total period of absence.

After considering the inquiry report and his previous service record, the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement on 7 February 2017.

The order was allegedly read over to him, later returned by post with the endorsement “Refused,” and pasted at his residence on 16 March 2017.

The employee died on 31 May 2017, after which his widow pursued the challenge and sought consequential benefits treating him as having died in service.

1. Whether the order of compulsory retirement dated 7 February 2017 suffered from procedural illegality or violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the finding of unauthorised and wilful absence was supported by evidence, particularly in view of the medical certificates produced by the employee

3. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the proved misconduct

4. Whether the penalty order was duly served upon the employee during his lifetime

The Tribunal applied Rules 11(vii), 14 and 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing the penalty of compulsory retirement, departmental inquiry and supply of the inquiry report, respectively, together with Rule 3(1)(ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules concerning devotion to duty.

Relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India , (1995) 6 SCC 749, State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava , (2021) 2 SCC 612, State of Karnataka v. Umesh , (2022) 6 SCC 563, and Union of India v. Subrata Nath , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617, the Tribunal reiterated that judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined principally to examining the competence of the authority, compliance with natural justice and statutory procedure, existence of some evidence, perversity or patent error, and, in exceptional cases, whether the punishment is so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience.

The Tribunal also applied the rule that courts and tribunals must not reappreciate evidence or substitute their own view for that of the disciplinary authority where the findings are supported by some evidence.

The Tribunal held that the employee had participated in the inquiry, understood the charges and was supplied the inquiry report with an opportunity to submit a representation under Rule 15(2); consequently, the allegation of denial of natural justice was not established.

The medical certificates did not account for the entire approximately 100-day absence, and the employee had failed to inform his superiors or obtain permission.

Combined with his two earlier penalties for similar absenteeism, the material constituted sufficient evidence of unauthorised and wilful absence and lack of devotion to duty.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Tribunal declined to reassess the evidence or substitute its own view on penalty.

It found that compulsory retirement was not shown to be perverse, procedurally defective or so disproportionate as to warrant interference, particularly in light of the repeated misconduct.

The returned registered article bearing the endorsement “Refused,” followed by pasting of the order at the employee’s residence, was treated as sufficient service of the penalty order.

It held that the disciplinary inquiry complied with the prescribed procedure, that adequate opportunity of defence was afforded, that the findings were supported by evidence, and that the penalty order was duly served.

The penalty of compulsory retirement dated 7 February 2017 was therefore upheld, and the request to treat the employee as having died in service with consequential benefits was rejected.

Since the respondents had already processed or released the admissible pensionary and terminal benefits, the Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.