The tribunal's decision to remand for lesser punishment was justified based on the principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions.

ORDER :

UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’) dated 17.11.2015 in Original Application No.251 of 2011 whereby it quashed and set aside the orders dated 31.03.2004 and 12.04.2011 by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority respectively and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate view for imposing lesser punishment other than dismissal from service and removal from service within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service.

2. This case has a very checkered history as narrated hereunder:

2.1 The respondent – employee was working as GDS Branch Postmaster since the year 1988. In the year 2002, while he working as GDS (Branch Postmaster), Chitpur B.O. at PO Uchchhal, he was served with memorandum of charges dated 11.02.2002, which contained two articles of charges namely that he remained abruptly absent from his duty with effect from 28.12.1999 to 31.12.1999 without getting the leave approved and he had obtained B.O. bag containing cash bag for Rs.4300/- closed by SPM Uchchhal S.O. for Chitpur B.O. on 24.12.1999 but the same was not taken into account of Chitpur B.O. account with effect from 28.12.1999 and onwards was not maintained and submitted to the competent authority. On denial of such charges and conducting the inquiry, penalty of dismissal from service was inflicted by the order dated 31.03.2004. The same was challenged by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority. Until 02.06.2004 it remained unattended for a pretty long time, and therefore, he approached ‘the tribunal’ by Original Application No.387 of 2005 and ‘the tribunal’ by order dated 12.06.2006 allowed and quashed and set aside the disciplinary proceedings and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service with consequential benefits. The said order of ‘the tribunal’ dated 12.06.2006 was challenged by the petitioners by way of Special Civil Application No.23547 of 2006 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 22.07.2010 was pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 12.06.2006 and the matter was remanded back to decide it afresh in accordance with law, and thereafter, ‘the tribunal’ heard the matter afresh and by order dated 21.02.2011 in Original Application No.387 of 2005 directed the appellate authority to consider the statutory appeal of the respondent dated 02.06.2004 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a personal hearing to the respondent herein. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority considered the appeal and vide order dated12.04.2011 dismissed the same.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.04.2011, the respondent filed the aforesaid Original Application challenging the initial order dated 31.03.2004 and order on reconsideration passed by the authority dated 12.04.2011 passed by the appellate authority. ‘The tribunal’ by the impugned order quashed and set aside the order dated 31.03.2004 and 12.04.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate view for imposing lesser punishment other than dismissal from service and removal from service within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service. It is against that order, the present petition is filed by the petitioners.

3. Mr. Harsheel Shukla, Central Government Standing Counsel, learned advocate has vehemently submitted that the scope of judicial review is very limited in disciplinary action taken against the respondent for unauthorized absence, without getting leave approved as also retaining