Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and proportionality; otherwise, penalties may be deemed overly harsh.

JUDGMENT :

ANANYA BANDYOBADHYAY, J.

1. The petitioner, a Conductor under the employment of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation (SBSTC), was subjected to disciplinary action on allegations which, upon close scrutiny, revealed procedural improprieties and disproportionality in the quantum of punishment imposed.

2. The controversy generated out of an incident dated 27th July, 2010, when the petitioner, while performing his duties as a Conductor in Vehicle No. WB39-0913 plying on the Kolkata–Siliguri (Up) route, was subjected to a routine inspection by the checking squad attached to the respondent authorities. During such inspection at Siliguri, three passengers were allegedly found travelling without valid tickets. The checking squad forthwith realised the requisite fare along with the prescribed fine from the said passengers. Notwithstanding the immediate rectification of the alleged irregularity and the absence of any resultant pecuniary loss to the Corporation, the petitioner was imputed with charges of dereliction of duty, negligence, and failure to safeguard the financial interests of the respondent Corporation.

3. During such inspection, an excess cash amounting to Rs. 1,285.80/- was located in the petitioner’s cash bag which, instead of being viewed as an inadvertent or clerical anomaly capable of explanation, was construed by the Disciplinary Authority as a manifestation of lack of integrity, thereby aggravating the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Consequently, a charge-sheet bearing No. BDO/700/5/SBSTC/10-11 dated 18th August, 2010 was issued against the petitioner, to which the petitioner duly submitted his written explanation on 4th October, 2010.

4. An enquiry report, which was furnished to the petitioner under Memo No. BDO/1029/SBSTC/11-12 dated 24th October, 2011. The Disciplinary Authority, without properly appreciating the mitigating circumstances or the absence of mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner, proceeded to impose the extreme penalty of removal from service vide Memo No. BDO/1470/SBSTC/11-12 dated 26th December, 2011, coupled with a direction to deduct a sum of Rs. 750/- from the petitioner’s salary and to forfeit the amount of Rs. 1,285.80/- which had already been deposited by the petitioner in the office treasury at the conclusion of his duty on the date of incident.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked his statutory right of appeal before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 4) on 5th March, 2012. However, the Appellate Authority, instead of exercising its jurisdiction as a corrective forum and reassessing the proportionality and procedural sanctity of the disciplinary decision, mechanically affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 14th August, 2012, thereby dismissing the appeal.

6. Left with no efficacious remedy, the petitioner preferred a review application before the competent authority. As the respondent authorities remained indolent and failed to consider the review within a reasonable time, the petitioner was constrained to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. No. 33084 (W) of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18th December, 2014, directing the Chairman, South Bengal State Transport Corporation, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s review application within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.

7. Pursuant to such