Disciplinary proceedings require substantial, corroborated evidence over conjecture. Punitive measures must be proportionate to the proved misconduct, considering the employee's tenure. Failure to follow the designated appellate authority or apply procedural fairness renders the disciplinary order unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT :

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Sri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anupras Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 17.11.2026 contained as Annexure-1 and order dated 05.02.2007 contained as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Messenger in the office of the Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow ('the Institute' for brevity), vide order dated 08.02.1988. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.04.1992, he was promoted on the post of Lower Division Clerk and vide order dated 01.04.2000 on the post of Upper Division Clerk.

4. The Institute is a statutory body created under an Act of the Parliament. It is funded by the Central Government, which has deep and pervasive control over the affairs and management of the Institute. The employees of the Institute are governed by the Central Civil Services (classification, control and appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules' for brevity), which has been adopted by the Board of Management of the Institute.

5. Vide order dated 23.01.2006, the petitioner was placed under suspension with reference to a contemplated disciplinary enquiry against him for alleged misconduct. On 03.02.2006, a memorandum of charges against the petitioner was issued. Thereafter, vide letter dated 13.02.2006, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet. In his reply, the petitioner denied all the charges and offered satisfactory explanation.

6. The opposite party no.3, however, vide order, dated 14.02.2006, rejected the petitioner's reply and decided to proceed in the matter and appointed an enquiry officer. By another order dated 14.02.2006, the opposite party no.3 appointed the presenting officer. Vide letter dated 27.02.2006, the petitioner raised his objection to the fact that he has not been supplied the report of the preliminary enquiry, which was conducted entirely behind the back of the petitioner and requested the enquiry officer to provide him the same along with the related documents. The petitioner's request was, however, rejected by the enquiry officer. The petitioner repeated his request vide letter dated 03.03.2006, but the same was not adhered to.

7. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted on various dates between 23.03.2006 and 03.05.2006. The enquiry officer found the charges against the petitioner to be proved and the impugned order of compulsory retirement was issued on 17.11.2006. In the charge sheet, there were as many as six charges had been leveled against the petitioner. The details of the charges and the petitioner's defence, as stated in the reply to the charge sheet and the proceeding before the enquiry officer, are being narrated as under:

a) The first charge against the petitioner was that by forging the signature of one Prof. Sushil Kumar, the petitioner managed to procure certain materials from the store. It was alleged that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before Prof. Sushil Kumar. The defence of the petitioner was that he filled up the requisition form M-3743, but it was misplaced from his table before getting it signed by the concerned officer. It was the unambiguous case of the petitioner that had not singed the requisition form. In this respect, he had made a request to