Disciplinary proceedings require adherence to procedural fairness, including the right to present a defense, and disproportionate penalties violate principles of justice.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The petitioner in O.A.No. 136 of 2021 aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2024 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, has filed the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner had been appointed as Sorting Assistant on 13.06.1997 in Railway Mail Service (RMS) of the Postal Department through direct recruitment. He was transferred to Paramakudi and joined RMS “MA” Division in the office of the Sub Record Office on 22.09.2003. A charge memo was issued to him on 21.03.2013 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 containing two allegations.

(i) the first allegation was that he was granted scooter advance for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and took payment on 03.08.2011 but did not buy any scooter.

(ii) the second allegation was that he had attended MDCP (Mid-Career Development Programme) training on 03.09.2012 after the department had paid hostel fees. He fell ill and complained that he had got fits. His mother had to be called and he was then taken to the hospital. He was absent from 03.09.2012 till 15.09.2012. The second charge was that he absented himself and did not attend the training during that period.

3. An enquiry was conducted and it is contended that the petitioner had admitted to the allegations. It was therefore held that the charges were proved. He was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. This punishment was challenged by him before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.12.2024 dismissed the Original Application, necessitating filing of the present Writ Petition.

4. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Sushma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first to fourth respondents.

5. Mr.R.Malaichamy, the learned counsel for petitioner pointed out the facts of the case and stated that the petitioner had obtained an advance of Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a scooter. However, medical advise was given that he should not drive a two wheeler. It was contended that therefore, he had not purchased the two wheeler. The learned counsel contended that the amount received as advance had been collected back by the respondents together with penalty. With respect to the absence from training, learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner suffered from fits and therefore, had to take treatment for the same and he was hospitalised. The learned counsel stated that for these two charges, the imposition of penalty of retirement from service was disproportionate. The learned counsel further contended that no enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not provided opportunity to place any fact before the enquiry officer including records relating to his medical condition. The learned counsel therefore contended that the order of the Tribunal must be set aside.

6. Ms. Sushma, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents however argued that the petitioner had financially benefited while receiving advance towards purchase of scooter. He had not purchased the scooter and had also not submitted documents towards purchase of scooter. The learned counsel argued that if the petitioner had a history of suffering from fits attack then, he should never have applied for the scooter advance. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner had also absented himself from 03.09.2012 till 18.09.2012. It was pointed out that both the allegations were admitted and stood proved during the course of enquiry. It was argued that the punishment imposed was commensurate with the nature of the charges alleged.

7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the materials available on records.

8. The writ petit