Punishment of removal is unsustainable where findings of corruption lack evidentiary link and reliable foundation.

The Petitioner, a Senior Assistant Manager at the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), was removed from service following a disciplinary inquiry initiated via a memorandum dated December 22, 2020

Three charges were framed: (I) allowing a casual laborer to operate a weighbridge; (II) sleeping during duty hours and leaving his post without permission on September 11, 2020; and (III) accepting illegal gratification of INR 75,000/-

The Inquiry Officer (IO) found Charges I and II "proved" and Charge III "partly proved"

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed the penalty of removal from service on November 29, 2022, treating the corruption charge as established

An appeal to the Executive Committee was rejected on September 18, 2023, affirming the DA's findings and the proportionality of the punishment

1. Whether a reliable evidentiary foundation existed to support the finding of "bribery" under Article III when the Inquiry Report itself contained internal inconsistencies and lacked proof of a quid pro quo

2. Whether the findings under Article I (operational lapse) and Article II (disciplinary lapse) were sufficient to sustain the extreme penalty of removal from service

3. Whether the Appellate Authority exercised independent application of mind as required under Regulation 68 of the CWC (Staff) Regulations, 1986

The Court applied the principles of judicial review in disciplinary matters as established in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which limits the Court's role to examining the legality of the process rather than reappreciating evidence

It relied on UOI v. H.C. Goel to underscore that while the standard of proof is "preponderance of probabilities," findings cannot rest on mere suspicion or conjecture

Regarding the proportionality of punishment, the Court cited B.C. Chaturvedi v. UOI, noting that interference is warranted if the punishment is outrageously disproportionate or based on unsustainable findings

Per Ram Chander v. UOI, the Court emphasized the duty of an Appellate Authority to show independent application of mind when affirming a penalty

The Court found that Article III (corruption) lacked a logical evidentiary bridge; although a transfer of INR 75,000/- was admitted, the IO explicitly noted a lack of "material evidence in support of sharing the margin" and found "no vigilance angle"

Despite these caveats, the DA and Appellate Authority treated the charge as fully established bribery, which the Court deemed a "silent hardening of a qualified finding"

Regarding Article II, the Court noted the IO failed to distinguish between "lying down" due to documented medical back pain and "sleeping on duty"

While Article I and the second limb of Article II (leaving the station) were found to be substantiated as minor operational/disciplinary lapses, they did not carry the "disciplinary weight" of corruption

Consequently, because the gravest charge (bribery) failed the test of legal sufficiency, the penalty of removal—premised on that very charge—became unsustainable

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, directing reinstatement of the Petitioner with continuity of service and seniority, while granting CWC limited liberty to reconsider the penalty based solely on surviving minor misconduct