Subsequent repayment of defrauded public funds does not mitigate gross misconduct or warrant judicial interference with disciplinary penalties.

The Applicant, an "Ex-Grinder" at the Ordnance Factory Medak since 1988, was issued a charge sheet on 30.08.2021 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for gross misconduct

It was alleged that between 2007 and 2020, he fraudulently claimed medical reimbursement (₹7,91,824) and Leave Travel Concession (LTC) (₹93,487) for his mother by falsely declaring her as a dependent

Investigations revealed the mother had been receiving a family pension from the Government of Telangana since 1995, which exceeded the prescribed dependency income limits of ₹3,500 (VI CPC) and ₹9,000 (VII CPC)

The Applicant admitted his guilt, claiming ignorance of rules, and refunded the principal amount of ₹13,35,844 (including interest)

On 07.03.2022, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with 2/3rd pension and gratuity

This was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 12.12.2022

The Applicant challenged these orders, seeking their quashment on grounds of disproportionality and lack of mala fide intention

1. Whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the misconduct, especially given the Applicant's repayment of the defrauded amount and his plea of ignorance

2. Whether the Applicant had exhausted all statutory remedies, including revision and review petitions, before approaching the Tribunal

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding disciplinary procedures for major penalties

Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which mandates maintaining absolute integrity and acting in a manner becoming of a government servant

Union of India v. M. Duraiswami, holding that subsequent repayment of defrauded amounts does not necessitate a lenient view

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Chairman Managing Director, V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, which restrict the scope of judicial review over the proportionality of punishment unless the penalty is "shocking to the conscience" of the court

The Tribunal found that the Applicant deliberately suppressed facts by signing a declaration stating his mother’s income did not exceed the dependency threshold, despite her receiving a continuous state pension and medical allowance

The court dismissed the Applicant's plea of ignorance of English and rules, noting that his official correspondence and representations were written in English

It observed that the fraud was sustained over a long period (1995–2017) and only ceased upon discovery

Applying the ratio in M. Duraiswami, the Tribunal held that the restitution of funds does not absolve the employee of the underlying misconduct

Regarding the quantum of punishment, the Tribunal noted that the Disciplinary Authority had already taken a "lenient view" by opting for compulsory retirement instead of dismissal, thereby preserving 2/3rd of his pensionary benefits

Since the procedural requirements were met and the misconduct (fraud on the public exchequer) was proved, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the competent authority's discretion

The Tribunal concluded that sympathy cannot override legal parameters when misconduct is proved

The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were upheld

No costs were ordered