Punishment of compulsory retirement for minor, regularized lapses is disproportionate and violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a Sorting Assistant appointed in 1997, was issued a charge memo in 2013 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

The charges involved: (i) failing to purchase a scooter after receiving a ₹30,000 advance, and (ii) unauthorized absence from training between 03.09.2012 and 15.09.2012.

An enquiry was conducted without a presenting officer; the enquiry officer allegedly obtained the petitioner's signature on an admission statement.

Consequently, he was punitively retired from service.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his challenge on 18.12.2024, leading to this Writ Petition.

Whether the enquiry procedure was legally sustainable given the absence of a presenting officer and the dual role played by the enquiry officer.

Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the nature of the proved charges.

The Court primarily applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 regarding disciplinary proceedings.

It relied on the principle of natural justice, establishing that an enquiry officer cannot act as a prosecutor/presenting officer as they must maintain an adjudicatory role.

Furthermore, the Court applied the "Doctrine of Proportionality" in judicial review of administrative actions to determine if a penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.

The Court found the enquiry procedure flawed because the enquiry officer assumed the role of the presenting officer, thereby overstepping his neutral mandate.

Regarding the first charge, the Court noted that the department had already recovered the advance with penal interest prior to the charge memo; thus, the petitioner had already been penalized financially.

Regarding the second charge, the Court observed the absence was due to a medical emergency (epilepsy/fits) and the period had been regularized as leave without pay, making further major punishment redundant.

The Court concluded that denying the petitioner the opportunity to present medical records or cross-examine witnesses, coupled with the flimsy nature of the charges, rendered the punishment of compulsory retirement "extremely disproportionate".

It held that the petitioner be reinstated into service with continuity of service but without back wages.

The original punishment of compulsory retirement was substituted with a "cut of increment for two years with cumulative effect".

The respondents were directed to pass implementation orders within four weeks.