Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited; courts may intervene if the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct, considering factors like service record and age.

Order :

1. The respondent-employee was appointed on the post of GDSBPM in the year 1985. While the respondent-employee was posted at Deladar (Jawal) Post Office, District Sirohi as GDSBPM during an inspection of the branch, cash to the tune of Rs.13,037/- was found deficit. In addition, an amount of Rs.6,086/- which were deposited by the certain persons against their telephone bills, was also not accounted. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent-employee vide memorandum dated 09.05.2012 and after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on 24.09.2012. The disciplinary authority passed an order on 24.09.2012 punishing the respondent-employee with punishment of removal from service. The respondent-employee preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 05.07.2013. Thereafter, the respondent - employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'learned Tribunal') while preferring OA No.319/2014 (Mohabbat Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.) in which the learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties at length observed that the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the orders of the disciplinary authority were in accordance with the procedure laid down and there was no illegality in such orders which have been passed, including the appellate order. However, in the limited intervention, while setting aside the impugned orders to the extent of punishment of removal from service, the learned Tribunal interfered in the quantum of punishment taking into account the long service of employee. The learned Tribunal while considering the deficit cash to the tune of Rs.13,037/- and also looking into 29 years of unblemished service of the respondent-employee declared the punishment to be disproportionate. The learned Tribunal has also observed that on the first day itself, the respondent-employee submitted that due to his ill-health, certain amounts was deposited by him in two installments and thus, he has not caused any loss to the public exchequer. Learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the age of the employee which is above 65 years. Against the order of learned Tribunal interfering in the quantum of punishment, the Union of India has preferred this petition.

2. Counsel for the Union of India has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs. the Director General, SSB and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 2707 of 2022, decided on 20.04.2022. The relevant portion of para No.8 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

"8. On the judicial review and interference of the courts in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality, few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to:

i) In the case of Om Kumar (supra), this Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as ‘Wednesbury principles’.

In the Wednesbury case, (1948) 1 KB 223, it was observed that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. Lord Greene further said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered, or the decision was one which no reasonable