Removal from service is disproportionate for a cash-remittance lapse cured within four days after long service.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant who was functioning as Sub Post Master, Sarai Khwaja Post Office, Agra, was proceeded against under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The charge was that, on 15.06.2013, he showed remittance of ₹4,00,000 but deposited only ₹3,00,000 with the Head Post Office, leaving ₹1,00,000 undeposited until 19.06.2013.

The charge also alleged failure to maintain proper daily accounts, physical cash verification and the prescribed cash-balance limit.

The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved.

After considering the applicant’s representation, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on 23.01.2017. The departmental appeal was dismissed on 19.06.2017. The applicant’s review petition and supplementary representation were rejected by order dated 26.09.2023, pursuant to directions issued earlier by the Tribunal.

The applicant challenged the disciplinary orders principally on the grounds that the non-deposit was inadvertent, the amount was subsequently deposited, he had completed approximately 25 years of service, and removal from service was disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

1. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the findings of misconduct recorded by the Inquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities?

2. Whether the penalty of removal from service was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the applicant and shocked the conscience of the Tribunal?

3. Whether allegations relating to separate fraud cases, FIRs and an earlier penalty could be relied upon to sustain the extreme penalty in the present disciplinary proceedings?

4. Whether the Principal Bench had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application when the principal events occurred at Agra but the review order was issued from Delhi?

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing major-penalty disciplinary proceedings, and the settled principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters is concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision-making process rather than re-appreciation of evidence.

Relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava and State of Karnataka v. Umesh, the Tribunal held that factual findings based on some evidence and reached through a procedurally valid inquiry ordinarily cannot be substituted by the Tribunal; however, interference with punishment is permissible where it is grossly disproportionate and shocks the judicial conscience.

The Tribunal also applied the requirement of reasoned and speaking orders under Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, and the principle that mere allegations, FIRs or pending proceedings cannot be treated as proved misconduct.

Under the proportionality doctrine, the penalty must bear a reasonable relationship to the misconduct actually established, having regard to the nature of the charge, financial loss, recovery of the amount, personal gain, past service and other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The Tribunal declined to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the finding that the applicant had failed to deposit the entire amount of ₹4,00,000 on 15.06.2013.

The applicant had participated in the inquiry, submitted his defence and represented against the inquiry report; the finding was supported by documentary and oral material.

The Tribunal therefore held that the failure to remit public money, particularly while functioning as Sub Post Master, constituted misconduct and could not be dismissed as mere inefficiency or an innocent error.

However, the Tribunal separately examined the proportionality of the punishment.

It noted that the amount of ₹1,00,000 was deposited within four days, there was no established permanent misappropriation or irrecoverable loss in the present proceedings, and the applicant had approximately 25 years of service.

Although the misconduct was serious and justified a major penalty, the Tribunal held that the respondents had not established personal gain or permanent misappropriation in the present charge.

The separate fraud allegations and FIRs could not aggravate the punishment because they were neither proved in the present proceedings nor shown to have been lawfully relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority.

The Review Order also failed to adequately address the applicant’s long service, subsequent deposit and the distinction between proved misconduct and pending allegations.

In these cumulative circumstances, removal from service was found to be grossly disproportionate and to shock the conscience of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal further rejected the territorial-jurisdiction objection because the review order dated 26.09.2023 was passed by the competent authority at Delhi and formed part of the cause of action challenged in the O.A.

However, the penalty of removal from service was held to be grossly disproportionate to the misconduct actually proved, considering the subsequent deposit of ₹1,00,000, absence of established permanent loss or personal gain in the present charge, and the applicant’s approximately 25 years of service.

The Original Application was partly allowed.

The orders dated 23.01.2017, 19.06.2017 and 26.09.2023 were quashed to the extent that they imposed or upheld removal from service.

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the question of penalty alone and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks, keeping in view the Tribunal’s observations.

The finding of misconduct was expressly left undisturbed, and there was no order as to costs.