Judicial review in disciplinary matters necessitates proportional penalties, particularly when leniency is afforded under penal statutes, emphasizing fairness and consistency.

JUDGMENT :

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India , assailing the Order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’) in the Original Application No. 3263/2016 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘OA’), titled Satya Pal Singh v. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner, finding no infirmity in the Orders dated 23.09.1997 and 28.08.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, respectively, vide which the petitioner had been awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 30.09.1997.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present petition as emerging from the record are that the petitioner/Sh. Satya Pal Singh was initially appointed as a Clerk in the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts (Air Force), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as, ‘CDA (AF) Dehradun’) and was subsequently promoted to the post of Auditor.

3. While serving in the office of CDA (AF) Dehradun, vide Judgement dated 31.01.1997, the petitioner was convicted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, U.P., under Sections 406/498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘IPC’), and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as, ‘RI’) for one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under Section 498A IPC, in failure whereof the period of imprisonment would further extend for another 9 months, and RI for 6 months along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section406 IPC.

4. On taking notice of the above, the Disciplinary Authority, viz. CDA (AF) Dehradun, after following the due procedure under Rule 19 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide Order dated 23.09.1997, imposed upon him the penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement' with effect from 30.09.1997. This Order was upheld by the Appellate Authority, viz.Controller General Defence Accounts, vide Order dated 23.07.1998.

5. In the interregnum, the petitioner filed an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, UP, against his conviction in the criminal case. The learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, UP, vide Order dated 05.06.1998, dismissed the said appeal, upholding the Order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, UP, of his conviction, however, the petitioner was allowed the benefit under theProbation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PO Act’) and instead of incarceration in jail, he was, accordingly, released on probation.

6. Aggrieved of the Order passed by the Appellate Authority with regard to his departmental enquiry, the petitioner filed OA No. 21/1999 before the learned Tribunal, which was dismissed by granting the petitioner the liberty to move a review petition.

7. The review petition so filed was then rejected by the Revisionary Authority, vide Order dated 11.12.2008.

8. The petitioner filed OA 3321/2009 before the learned Tribunal challenging the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisionary Authority’s Orders. While allowing the said OA, the learned Tribunal, vide Order dated 13.07.2010, quashed and set aside the Orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisionary Authority’s Orders, and remitted the matter back to Appellate Authority with a direction to issue a speaking order.

9. In compliance of the said Order dated 13.07.2010, the Appellate Authority again upheld the Order of the Disciplinary Authority, videOrder dated 12.10.2010.

10. Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned Order dated 12.10.2010 of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner again