The penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate and unjustified when the proved charges of misconduct involve only administrative dereliction of duty without any component of financial misappropriation or moral turpitude.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 27.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.12732/2015, impugning the order of punishment inflicted upon him, that is, dismissal from service, which order came to be affirmed in the appeal by the Appellate Authority, i.e., Board of Directors, Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited¹'Corporation' for short.

The petitioner/appellant was working as a Junior Assistant in the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner/appellant faced disciplinary proceedings in respect of the following Articles of Charge:

"Charge No.1: You have issued commodities vide Bill Nos.2755 to 2772. In these bills, you have not mentioned the dates properly. You have not entered the ration card numbers in these bills properly. You have not obtained the signatures of the cardholders on the bills and you have not entered the bill numbers in the Daily Sales Book.

By preparing the bills in such vague manner, you have misused the commodities for your self again.

Charge No.2: The quantities of the commodities shown in the bills have been entered in the Daily Sales book. The quantities entered in the Daily Sales Book and the quantities shown in the bills differ from each other and in this way, you have misused the commodities for your self gain.

Charge No.3: You have entered the sales in the Daily Sales Book without raising the bills and in this way you have misused the commodities for your self gain.

Charge No.4: By showing only BPL rice in the bills and by showing rice, wheat, sugar and ragi in the Daily Sales Book, you have misused the commodities for your self gain.

Charge No.5: The ration cards pertaining to Mid Day Meals to school children which are required to be in the custody of the school children are kept in the retail point and in this way, you have committed misconduct."

The following charges stood proved in the enquiry.

"(a) having failed to record date & ration card numbers properly on bills No.2755 to 2772, having not obtained the signature of ration card holders on the said bills and having failed to record the above bill numbers in the DSA concerned;

(b) having failed to maintain proper account of commodities in respect of sales on 28.12.2002 by showing difference between quantity recorded in DSA and the billed quantity;

(c) having charged off 3489 Kgs. Rice, 889 Kgs. of wheat, 372 Kgs. of sugar and 588 Kgs. of Ragi in the DSA for 29 and 30th December 2002 and 9th, 10th, 13th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 25th and 27th January 2003 without actually preparing the bills.

(d) having charged off 102 Kgs. of sugar in DSA & stock book record of 10th, 22nd and 24th January 2003 without billing the same in the relevant bills; and

(e) having kept, in the retail point, MDM cards of students in violation of set procedure are proved."

The other charges regarding misappropriation etc., were not proved. The charges which stood proved are not serious in nature inasmuch as there is no allegation of misappropriation or misconduct of serious nature. The charges which stood proved may amount to dereliction of duty to some extent, as the appellant failed to maintain records etc., but not of serious nature.

While the charges are proved, the inflicting punishment of dismissal from service is highly and shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. We are of the considered view that for the charges proved, imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service ought not to have been inflicted.

On the last date of hearing, we passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation submits that he will make submissions, whether if charges stand proved against the appellant would attract a major penalty or not?

List this appeal on 09.06.2026."

The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the charges which stood proved are not serious enough to inflict the major