Removal for postal non-delivery was disproportionate; the disciplinary authority must reconsider the penalty.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer-II, was charged under Rule 10 of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, with retaining 6,089 unregistered and 212 registered postal articles without proper remarks and, while off duty, refusing to give a statement concerning the charges.

Following an inquiry that found the charges proved, the Disciplinary Authority removed him from engagement on 5 January 2017; the Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty on 5 May 2017.

He challenged the orders, alleging procedural unfairness and arguing that excessive workload and insufficient staffing contributed to the non-delivery.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by breach of natural justice or procedural irregularity, or whether the findings of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were perverse.

Whether removal from engagement was so disproportionate to the proved charges, in light of the circumstances, as to warrant judicial interference.

Under Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, judicial review of disciplinary findings is limited: a tribunal does not reappraise evidence where some evidence supports the findings, but may intervene where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, or reached in breach of natural justice.

The quantum of punishment ordinarily lies with the disciplinary authorities; under B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India, interference is permitted where the penalty shocks the conscience, and the usual course is to remit the matter for reconsideration of punishment rather than impose a substitute penalty.

Union of India v. R.K. Sharma, explaining Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, further limits intervention to extreme cases displaying perversity or irrationality.

The charge also invoked Rules 115(1) and 115(2) of Volume VI, Part III, and the duty of devotion to duty under Rule 21 of the 2011 Rules.

The Tribunal found documentary support, including a Panchnama, for the inquiry findings and saw no perversity, illegality, or failure by the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal; it therefore rejected the challenge to the disciplinary findings.

On penalty, however, it considered that the applicant had repeatedly raised workload and staffing concerns, that the authorities had not shown effective steps to address them, and that additional postmen were later deployed at the office.

Although the applicant remained responsible for his duties, the Tribunal concluded that the circumstances, together with the absence of any allegation of misappropriation or mala fide intention, made removal unduly harsh and disproportionate.

It set aside the removal order dated 5 January 2017 and the appellate order dated 5 May 2017, and remitted the matter to the competent Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment alone, without reopening the findings.

The reconsideration was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order; no costs were awarded.