Scope of Judicial Review is limited to Decision-Making Process, not Merits of Proportional Punishment

The appellant, an Assistant Manager/Junior Engineer at the respondent company, was issued a charge sheet on 11.02.2026 alleging two counts of misconduct.

Following a Departmental Enquiry where both charges were proved, a show-cause notice was issued proposing a minor penalty: recovery of ₹3,65,160 and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

However, the Disciplinary Authority subsequently dropped the recovery but proposed a major penalty—stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect.

Despite a second show-cause notice regarding the revised punishment, the appellant failed to reply, and the major penalty was imposed on 29.08.2017.

His subsequent appeal was dismissed on 14.05.2020.

The learned Writ Court dismissed his writ petition (W.P. No. 39114/2024) on 20.11.2025, leading to this Writ Appeal.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is permitted to impose a major penalty after initially proposing a minor penalty, and whether such an action violates the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the High Court, under judicial review, can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed in a departmental enquiry unless it is shockingly disproportionate.

The court applied the restricted scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters as established in Union of India and Another v. K.G. Soni (2006), which dictates that courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they suffer from procedural impropriety or defy logic.

It further relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Another (1995), holding that a High Court cannot substitute its own view on the quantum of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the court.

Additionally, the court upheld the principle that a Disciplinary Authority is competent to modify proposed punishments provided the delinquent employee is afforded a fresh opportunity to respond.

The Court observed that the appellant was afforded adequate opportunity at every stage: first after the enquiry report, and second when the Disciplinary Authority decided to shift from a minor penalty (recovery and two non-cumulative increments) to a major penalty (one cumulative increment).

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the authority could not change its mind, noting that the issuance of a fresh show-cause notice regarding the proposed major penalty satisfied the requirements of natural justice.

Regarding the severity of the punishment, the Court held that the findings were based on proved charges and did not meet the threshold of "perversity" or "no evidence".

Since the decision-making process was procedurally sound, the Court declined to re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the administrator's choice of penalty.

The court held that the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was not disproportionate or arbitrary.

It concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the appellant was given a fair chance to respond to the revised proposed punishment but chose not to do so.

The appeal was dismissed as sans merit.