2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J
Rajesh Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14348/2023

In disciplinary matters, judicial review allows for intervention when findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. Where terminal penalties are based on grave charges that fail to meet the standard of proof, the Court may set aside the punishment for lack of proportionality, even if lesser lapses are established.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Scope of judicial review - Court is not to sit as an appellate body to reappreciate evidence but may intervene where findings are unsupported by material, perverse, or where irrelevant considerations taken into account - Judicial review extends to examining whether the gravest charges forming the foundation for an extreme penalty are based on a reliable evidentiary foundation - (Paras 10, 12, 13).

(B) Service Law - Penalty - Proportionality - Where a severe penalty is imposed based on multiple allegations, the legitimacy of said punishment hinges upon the reliability of the most serious finding of misconduct - If the grave charge cannot withstand scrutiny, the penalty cannot be upheld solely on the basis of lesser, surviving operational lapses - Authority to set aside penalty and mould relief is available where the link between findings and punishment has broken down - (Paras 13, 35, 36).

(C) Disciplinary Authority - Appellate Process - Requirement of independent scrutiny - Appellate authority must conduct an independent application of mind to the grounds urged rather than mechanical concurrence with the disciplinary authority - Failure to engage with the limitations of the inquiry report renders the appellate decision procedurally flawed - (Paras 33, 34).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was removed from service following a disciplinary inquiry concerning three articles of charge: improper deployment of casual labour, instances of sleeping on duty and unauthorized absence, and allegations of corruption involving unexplained bank credits. The inquiry officer found various parts of these charges proved or partly proved. Both the disciplinary and appellate authorities upheld the removal, terming the misconduct as grave. The petitioner challenged this before the Court, arguing that the corruption charge was unsupported by substantive evidence and that the penalty was grossly disproportionate to the actual established lapses.

Findings of Court:
The findings of the inquiry officer regarding the charge of corruption were found to be based on conjecture rather than evidentiary proof. The Court held that a mere unexplained financial transfer, without evidence of quid pro quo or illegal gratification, does not justify a finding of bribery. Further, the allegation of sleeping on duty was not established through consistent evidence. Consequently, the foundation for the extreme penalty of removal collapsed. The appellate authority failed to perform a meaningful review, relying on the flawed conclusions of the disciplinary authority.

Issues: The main issues were whether the findings of misconduct, particularly regarding corruption, were supported by evidence, and whether the penalty of removal was disproportionate given the uncertain evidentiary foundation of the primary charge.

Ratio Decidendi: When an extreme penalty is grounded in charges of varying degrees of gravity, the Court must ensure the most severe accusations are rigorously substantiated. If the primary grave charge fails on analysis, the Court cannot sustain a penalty of removal based solely on lesser, peripheral lapses, as this violates the principle of proportionality and the requirement of a direct, rational link between proved misconduct and the punishment imposed.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders of removal set aside; reinstatement ordered with continuity of service; matter remanded to the competent authority for reconsideration of penalty limited to surviving minor lapses.