Disciplinary authorities must pass reasoned, speaking orders. While courts typically avoid substituting employer-imposed penalties, they may do so in exceptional cases involving retired employees to ensure justice and prevent endless litigation, provided it is not used as a general precedent.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Mukesh H. Rathod, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2.

2. The present petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 01.12.2012 and 13.02.2013 respectively, passed by the respondents herein as it being illegal, unjust, perverse, bad in eye of law and without considering ratio laid down by the Hon'ble the

Apex Court, in the interest of justice;

(C) During pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay all retirement benefits considering that the impugned orders are bad and illegal and have not been passed against the petitioner, forthwith.

(D) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Mr. Rathod has submitted as follows:

3.1. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on the date of her retirement and the charges leveled against the petitioner would not stand by any means, inasmuch as, the petitioner neither disobeyed nor caused any loss to the respondent.

3.2. The petitioner came to be retired on 30th April, 2012 and the office order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the respondent would not whisper about any contemplation of departmental inquiry against the petitioner.

3.3. The inquiry officer has erroneously observed that charge Nos. 7 and 8 leveled against the petitioner stand proved. The report itself

suggests that the petitioner informed her superior before leaving the office on 8th November, 2011, albeit had not taken any written permission. The witness of the respondent company has also confirmed that due to her absence, no loss was incurred by the respondent.

3.4. The Disciplinary Authority, without assigning any reasons and by way of a non-speaking order, imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments with future effect, which is not only harsh and disproportionate but beyond the evidence that came on record during the inquiry.

3.5. Even the Appellate Authority, without appreciating the submissions of the petitioner and again by way of a non-speaking order, reduced the penalty of stoppage of three increments to two increments.

3.6. When the petitioner had not disobeyed any order passed by any superior officer and there was no loss caused to the respondent due to the early leaving the office of the petitioner on 8th November, 2011, the petitioner could not have been subjected to the aforesaid penalty.

3.7. Mr. Rathod, learned Advocate for the petitioner, under the

instructions of his client, would make a statement that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are non-speaking ones, in that circumstance, instead of remanding the matter back to the authority, this Court may substitute the penalty whereby the petitioner agreed to accept the penalty of stoppage of one increment instead of two as passed by the Appellate Authority.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. Per contra, Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent, would submit that it is remained undisputed on the record that the petitioner had left the office without taking any prior permission of her superior, which w