Tribunals cannot substitute disciplinary authorities' discretion where inquiries follow procedural rules and natural justice.

The applicant, a Senior Technician with 25 years of service, was issued a major penalty charge memorandum (SF-5) for unauthorized absence from 26.09.2011 to 17.01.2012

Despite attempts to serve the notice and summons, the applicant refused to accept them, leading to an ex-parte inquiry where the charges were proved

On 06.02.2013, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of Compulsory Retirement with full benefits

The applicant filed an appeal after a five-year delay on 05.03.2018, which was rejected as time-barred

The Revisionary Authority subsequently upheld the punishment on 21.06.2019

The applicant challenged this order, alleging he was prevented from working and asserting bias

The respondents noted this was the applicant’s second round of litigation, as a previous punishment for a similar offense was upheld in O.A. 271/2012

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Revisionary Authority is legally sustainable or suffers from procedural irregularities

2. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the proved charge of unauthorized absence

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to salary from October 2011 and the immediate release of retiral benefits

The court applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the statutory limitation period for filing applications

It relied on the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules regarding the conduct of inquiries

For judicial review, the court applied principles from B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, which limits interference in disciplinary matters unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate

It further cited Union of India v. Parma Nanda, establishing that Tribunals cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the competent authority if the inquiry followed natural justice

It further cited Om Kumar v. Union of India regarding the primary role of administrative authorities in determining the quantum of punishment

The Tribunal found that the respondents followed due procedure, as multiple attempts were made to serve the charge sheet and inquiry notices, which the applicant refused to acknowledge

Consequently, the ex-parte inquiry was held to be valid and not a violation of natural justice

Regarding the delay, the applicant waited five years to appeal the 2013 order, and the O.A. itself was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s history of similar misconduct, which weighed against the argument of "shocking disproportionality"

Under the scope of judicial review, the court held it could not re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority over findings of fact supported by evidence

However, the court observed that while the punishment was valid, the respondents had failed to release the applicant's retiral benefits since 2013, citing his non-cooperation as a hurdle

However, it directed the respondents to grant all consequential retiral benefits pursuant to the 2013 compulsory retirement order

The applicant was directed to cooperate and submit the necessary documents, and the respondents were ordered to complete the processing of retiral dues within six months of receiving said papers

The O.A. was disposed of with no order as to costs