Recovery of subsidy loss does not absolve an officer who approved payment without verification.

The petitioner, an Assistant Horticultural Officer, was charged with approving a drip-irrigation subsidy of ₹15,538 without properly verifying the supporting documents.

The beneficiary testified that she had neither received the subsidy nor installed drip irrigation, and the petitioner did not cross-examine her.

Following a departmental inquiry, the State Government dismissed the petitioner from service.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal, directed reinstatement, substituted a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect, and treated the intervening period as dies non.

The petitioner sought review of the Tribunal’s order insofar as it denied continuity of service and back wages and imposed the substituted penalty.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, judicial review of disciplinary proceedings concerns the legality and fairness of the decision-making process; the reviewing court does not reappreciate evidence, assess its adequacy or reliability, or substitute its view merely because another conclusion is possible.

Interference may be justified where there is a breach of natural justice or statutory procedure, no evidence supports the finding, the finding is perverse or arbitrary, or the punishment shocks the court’s conscience.

The Court relied on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610; State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India; and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) SCC 612.

The disciplinary proceedings were conducted under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, including Rule 11 and Rule 8(viii).

The Court found that the charge was not merely that the petitioner had failed to prevent a loss; it was that he had approved the subsidy without verifying the relevant documents and the beneficiary’s entitlement.

The beneficiary’s evidence supported that charge, and the fact that the amount had been recovered from another employee did not exonerate the petitioner.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on J. Ahmed and Rajendra Yadav, finding that the charge involved an established failure to verify the subsidy approval and that the petitioner’s charge differed from that against the other employee.

Although the Court considered that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting a penalty for dismissal, it left the Tribunal’s order undisturbed because the State had not challenged it.

It also declined to disturb the Tribunal’s decisions on the penalty and dies non period.

The Tribunal’s order—including reinstatement, withholding of one increment with cumulative effect, and treatment of the intervening period as dies non—was not disturbed; the petitioner was not granted continuity of service or back wages.