Tribunal cannot substitute disciplinary penalties unless the punishment is perverse or shocks the judicial conscience.

The applicant, a Sub Postmaster at Amnour Sub Post Office, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

The charges involved: (a) irregular expenditure of ₹1,500 for cash conveyance despite the availability of official security and transport; and (b) conspiring to manhandle and assault the then Postmaster of Marhowrah HO, Shri Ramesh Kumar Suman, following a dispute over the irregular charges

On June 27, 2018, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction of one stage of pay from ₹56,900 to ₹55,200 in Level-7 for two years without cumulative effect

The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on August 17, 2019

The applicant challenged these orders, contending that the ₹1,500 had already been deposited back into the government account, the assault charge lacked an FIR or sufficient evidence, and the punishment was motivated to deny him an inquiry

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the resulting punishment were legally sustainable given the applicant's prior restitution of funds

2. Whether the findings regarding the assault were based on sufficient evidence in the absence of a police FIR

3. Whether the Tribunal should exercise its power of judicial review to interfere with the quantum of punishment or the findings of the authorities

Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties

Principles of Natural Justice, ensuring the delinquent employee was granted a fair opportunity to represent his case

Tribunals/Courts act as reviewing authorities of the decision-making process rather than as appellate courts of fact, and should not interfere with the discretion of disciplinary authorities unless the punishment "shocks the conscience" of the court

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s own reply dated January 11, 2018, contained an admission of fault regarding the unauthorized use of a private vehicle for cash transport and the subsequent irregular claims

The Tribunal held that the act of returning the money to the government coffers did not negate the initial misconduct but rather confirmed the validity of the charge

Regarding the second charge of manhandling, the Tribunal found that the Disciplinary Authority relied on witness statements which corroborated the incident, satisfying the standard of evidence required in departmental proceedings, which is distinct from the proof beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal trials

The Tribunal further noted that the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself and that the Appellate Authority had passed a reasoned order after considering all points raised

Consequently, the Tribunal determined there was no procedural irregularity, mala fide intent, or perversity in the findings

The Tribunal answered the issues by stating that the punishment was neither arbitrary nor shockingly disproportionate and that the procedures followed were in accordance with the law

The prayer to quash the punishment and allow the increment was denied

No order as to costs was made