Tribunals cannot encroach upon the discretion of disciplinary authorities by directing the nature of punishment to be imposed.

The second respondent (A. Arun), while serving as a Postal Assistant, was issued a charge memo on 28.09.2012 alleging suppression of deposits totaling Rs. 2,600/- between 2010 and 2011

Despite the respondent voluntarily crediting the amount and a witness during the enquiry denying the contents of a statement he had signed, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved

Consequently, the respondent was removed from service on 25.02.2015, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority on 27.07.2015

The respondent challenged these orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The CAT found the enquiry proceedings vitiated by violations of natural justice—specifically the non-examination and lack of cross-examination of the de facto complainant—and remitted the matter back with a direction to the authorities to "consider the matter sympathetically" for a lesser punishment

The Union of India filed the present Writ Petition challenging the CAT’s interference with the disciplinary authority's discretion regarding the quantum of punishment

1. Whether the enquiry proceedings were vitiated due to the non-compliance with the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Appellate Authority to impose a "lesser punishment" while remanding the matter

The Court applied the fundamental Principle of Natural Justice, which requires that a delinquent employee be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and complainants

Furthermore, the Court relied on the doctrine of Judicial Restraint regarding discretionary powers, establishing that a Tribunal or Court serves to review the decision-making process but cannot validly encroach upon the statutory discretion of a Disciplinary or Appellate Authority to determine the specific nature of punishment once charges are proved

The High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s finding that the enquiry was procedurally flawed.

It noted that the Enquiry Officer relied on statements where the authors were either not examined or where witnesses denied knowledge of the contents

Specifically, the failure to subject the de facto complainant to cross-examination constituted a clear violation of natural justice

However, the High Court found merit in the Petitioners' argument regarding the CAT's overreach.

The Court reasoned that while the Tribunal was justified in remitting the matter for a fresh enquiry, it lacked the legal authority to pre-emptively dictate or "sympathetically" suggest the nature of the punishment to be imposed

Such observations improperly fetter the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority before the fresh enquiry is even concluded

It upheld the Tribunal’s order to set aside the punishment and remit the matter for a fresh enquiry due to the violation of natural justice

However, it specifically set aside and quashed the Tribunal’s observations and directions regarding the "sympathetic" consideration of a lesser punishment, holding that the Tribunal has no authority to encroach upon the discretion of the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority in determining the penalty

The matter stands remanded for fresh enquiry without the restrictive observations on punishment