Removal for workplace assault was shockingly disproportionate, warranting reconsideration of punishment.

The petitioner, an Assistant Administrative Officer with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), was involved in a physical altercation with another employee at the LIC office on 4 March 2022.

Following departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority found that he had abused and slapped the other employee and removed him from service on 2 June 2023.

His departmental appeal was rejected on 29 February 2024.

The petitioner challenged both orders, alleging procedural unfairness and disproportionate punishment; the respondents maintained that the inquiry was fair and the misconduct proved.

Whether the departmental inquiry and findings of misconduct were vitiated by procedural unfairness or otherwise warranted interference in judicial review

Whether removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved, requiring reconsideration of the penalty

The Court applied Rules 21 and 24 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960, concerning the alleged misconduct, and Rule 39, including Rule 39(1)(i), under which the penalty was imposed.

It relied on Punjab & Sind Bank v. Raj Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 519, for the rule that courts ordinarily defer to the disciplinary authority on punishment but may interfere where the penalty is so disproportionate that it shocks the court’s conscience; ordinarily, the matter should then be remitted for reconsideration.

It also relied on Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1109, for the principle that penalty may be reconsidered in light of the nature of the misconduct, length of service, past record, age, and other relevant circumstances.

The Court held that the inquiry complied with the applicable rules and principles of natural justice: the petitioner had an opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses, and the departmental witnesses supported the allegation that he abused and slapped his colleague. It therefore found no basis to disturb the finding of misconduct.

On penalty, however, the Court considered the nature and circumstances of the altercation and the subsequent settlement between the employees. Although the settlement did not extinguish the employer’s right to discipline the petitioner, it was a relevant mitigating circumstance. In the Court’s view, removal from service was shockingly disproportionate, so the quantum of punishment required reconsideration.

The matter was remitted to the competent disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty, taking account of the specified circumstances, and issue a reasoned order within eight weeks of production of a certified copy of the judgment.