$~53

*

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 06.05.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition challenges an order dated 28 February 2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal¹1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter in OA 2519/2016²2 Prof. Rajesh Anand v. Union of India and Ors..

2. We have heard Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners and Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for Respondent 1.

3. Disciplinary proceedings against Respondent 1, emanating from a charge sheet dated 24 April 2014, culminated in his dismissal from service by order dated 15 June 2016.

4. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent 1 approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the order of dismissal from service and his reinstatement.

5. The OA stands disposed of by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 28 February 2022, which makes for somewhat peculiar reading. The judgment runs into 14 paragraphs. The first 10 paragraphs of the judgment merely recite the facts and rival contentions of the parties. Paragraph 11 merely records the fact of service of the charge sheet on Respondent 1 and the proceedings thereafter which culminated in his dismissal from service.

6. Thereafter, paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment read thus:

“12. After going through the articles of charge, we are of the considered view that the charges against the applicant are not too grave to attract the extreme punishment of dismissal from service in terms of service law. It is an admitted fact that the applicant has pensionable service and, therefore, even if the respondents were of the opinion that continuation of the applicant in service would be undesirable, he could have been retired from service compulsorily keeping in view the service rendered by him with the respondent department, and in such a situation, the applicant will become entitled to pensionary benefits. Even if the whole case of prosecution is taken to be true, the impugned punishment shocks our judicial conscience being highly excessive, harsh, severe and disproportionate to the proven delinquency. We are also of the view that for every lapse on the part of the employee, serious punishment depriving him and his family of the entire livelihood is not desirable.

13. In view of the observation made above, we allow the instant OA. The impugned order of punishment dated 15.06.2016 is set aside. The applicant shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service forthwith. It is made clear that the applicant, on reinstatement, will not be entitled to any back wages or arrears thereof from the date of impugned dismissal order till the date of reinstatement, but shall be entitled only to the notional benefits. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to impose any punishment other than dismissal/removal from service by taking into account the entire service rendered by him with the department. The manner in which the period the applicant remained under suspension/out of service is to be treated, shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with rules.”

7. We do not know why the Tribunal has not addressed the merits of the case against Respondent 1 or the findings of the IO or the DA which actually were subject matter of the challenge before the Tribunal.

8. Be that as it may, as Respondent 1 has not chosen to challenge the impugned judgment dated 28 February 2022, we are not in a position to state anything further on that ground.

9. The Tribunal has merely addressed the aspect of proportionality of punishment. In paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has expressed the view that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges against Respondent 1.

10. While asserting that there was no lack of proportionality between the charges against the respondent and the punishment awarded to him, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG, very fairly suggests that the impugned order could be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the aspect of proportionality and provide