Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to cases of substantial procedural errors, with the court retaining the discretion to modify disproportionate punishments in exceptional circumstances.

(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5360 of 2015. By the said order, the learned Single Judge modified the punishment imposed on the respondent–writ petitioner from reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year to reduction of pay for a period of three months without cumulative effect.

2. The respondent, who was then serving in the establishment of the appellants, was issued a charge memorandum alleging that on 04.11.2011, at about 13:30 hours, immediately after completion of duty, he was found standing in front of “B” Sector Barrack in a suspicious manner, and that upon noticing the arrival of the staff for pocket checking, he ran away to evade such inspection.

3. A departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable service rules, during which the charge against the respondent was held proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year, which was subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent–employee filed W.P. No.

5360 of 2015 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, modified the punishment as stated above. Assailing the said order, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the employer–appellants.

5. Ms. Sunita Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the charge of misconduct having been duly proved in a properly conducted domestic enquiry, and the disciplinary proceedings having been held in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was just, proper, and proportionate to the charge.

6. She further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the quantum of punishment, especially in the absence of any procedural infirmity or violation of natural justice. It was also submitted that, even assuming that the punishment imposed was considered excessive or disproportionate, the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment, instead of substituting his own view.

7. Per contra, Mr. A.S. Mujbur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–employee, submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly exercised judicial discretion in the peculiar facts of the case. He contended that the alleged misconduct, even if accepted as proved, had occurred after completion of duty hours, and there was no material evidence to indicate any mala fide intention or moral turpitude on the part of the respondent.

8. It was further contended that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was grossly disproportionate to the nature of the alleged misconduct, and therefore, the interference by the learned Single Judge was both reasonable and justified. He submitted that the order impugned does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.

10. It is not in dispute that the alleged misconduct occurred after completion of duty hours. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the record, has observed that even assuming the allegation to be true, the same might constitute a minor violation of conduct, but would not justify the major penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for one year.

11. It i