Courts possess the authority to mould relief in disciplinary matters when a punishment is found to be disproportionate. Where a candidate with a disability has successfully completed a selection process, the court may protect such selection to prevent irreparable career prejudice, absent findings of moral turpitude or dishonest conduct.

ORDER :

Budi Habung, J.

Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Nani Anju, learned Standing Counsel, APPSC for the State respondent.

2. The appellant is a person with locomotor disability and is wheelchair-bound. She is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 364 of 2025, whereby the writ petition was partly allowed and the punishment of debarment imposed by the State Public Service Commission vide order dated 24.07.2025, debarring the writ petitioner for a period of one year from appearing in all examinations conducted by the APPSC, was modified to the period already undergone as on the date of delivery of the judgment.

3. The relevant operative portion of the said judgment, being relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced below:

“Para-41-Having said that it must also be kept in sight that the petitioner is the person with benchmark Locomotor disability and is wheel-chair bound. The portioner is a young citizen of State of Arunachal Pradesh and although she has fairly admitted in her reply that she did posses the mobile phone during the period of examination but there being no materials placed by the APPSC to show that the petitioner had used mobile phone during the course of the examination within the examination hall or even outside, therefore, this Court considers the imposition of punishment of debarment for a period of one year to be harsh.

42. As held in Om Kumar (supra) that where the situation demands, the quantum of punishment can be suitably moulded by the writ Court although it is primarily within the domain of the administrative authority as the Writ Court is well empowered to decide on the question of quantum of punishment; while for the reasons discussed, this Court rejects the contentions on behalf of the writ petitioner. However, this Court considers it appropriate to mould the relief to the extent that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment undergone so far in the opinion of the Court is considered be sufficient. The impugned order to the extent it imposes debarment for a period of one year is therefore modified to the extent of the period undergone by the petitioner till the date of delivery of the judgment. The impugned order of debarment of one year is accordingly suitably modified in terms of the above. The petitioner will now be able to appear for any such examination conducted by the APPSC subject to fulfillment of provisions of law.”

4. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that, although the learned Single Judge found the punishment of one-year debarment to be harsh, the relief was moulded by adopting the date of pronouncement of the judgment, i.e. 04.12.2025, instead of the date on which arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved, i.e. 02.09.2025. This resulted in the denial of an opportunity to participate in the recruitment process conducted by the APPSC, despite the appellant having applied by filing an interlocutory application seeking interim permission.

5. Being aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

6. The grounds urged by the appellant, in brief, are that although the learned Single Judge held the punishment of debarment to be harsh and grossly disproportionate, the relief granted was not made fully effective inasmuch as the period of debarment was restricted only until the date of pronouncement of the judgment, i.e. 04.12.2025, instead of the date on which the matter was finally heard and reserved for judgment, i.e. 02.09.2025.

7. Acc