1. The State Government & its officials have presented this Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for laying a challenge to the State Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 28.06.2024 whereby Respondentcivil servant’s Application No.1583/2024 having been favoured, the order of compulsory retirement awarded by Punishment Order dated 22.03.2024 has been set aside with a direction to reinstate her into service and to pay all consequential benefits including financial ones. Time for compliance is prescribed as four months.
2. Learned AAG appearing for the Petitioners submits that once the charges have been proved in a regularly constituted Disciplinary Enquiry, the order of punishment could not have been set aside. He draws our attention to the three principal charges and the evidentiary material by which they have been held to be proved. He also highlights the undesirable consequences of letting the delinquent employee go free and unscathed. This aspect having not been duly considered by the Tribunal, he submits, the impugned order is liable to be voided. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – employee resists the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:
3.1 There were in all six allegations as enlisted in the Preliminary Enquiry Report dated 30.09.2020; in the Show Cause Notice dated 13.05.2022 the following three charges were articulated:
"i) The delinquent employee had wrongly deployed the teachers from original school to other schools where there was need and to the vacancies so created, had posted guest teachers and that amounts to dereliction of duty and violation of Article 62 of the Karnataka Financial code.
ii) The delinquent employee got the office vehicle repaired at the cost of Rs.47,649/- + Rs.18,260- + Rs.28,772/- without obtaining consent from the jurisdictional RTO and thus has violated Rule 3(1)(2)(3) & (4) of the KCS (conduct) Rules, 2021.
iii) The delinquent employee without prior sanction of the higher ups, has deployed Rs.15.03 lakh for the construction of school building & compound around it and this is in violation of Rule 3(1)(2)(3) & (4) of the KCS (conduct) Rules, 2021."
These charges have been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer vide Enquiry Report dated 30.05.2023. In the representation dated 19.07.2023, although the delinquent employee found fault with the findings, the competent authority did not find any substance in the said representation and therefore, issued the punishment order dated 22.03.2024 compulsorily retiring her from service.
3.2 Once in a properly constituted Disciplinary Enquiry, findings of guilt have been recorded after hearing the delinquent employee, ordinarily Courts would not readily interfere with the same, as rightly submitted by learned AAG. He is also right in arguing that the case of the employee is of mitigation of punishment at the most inasmuch as, admittedly no prior permission for spending a huge sum of money for construction of the school building and for effecting repair of the office vehicle has been obtained. Similarly, no permission of the higher ups has been secured before posting the regular teachers from the subject schools to the other schools wherein there were no teachers. Therefore, finding of guilt cannot be faltered.
3.3 The above being said, what we have to notice is the elements of bonafide which the subject allegations involve: It is not the case of the Petitioners that the delinquent has misappropriated the public funds for her private purpose. Admittedly, the office vehicle has been got repaired by spending the requisite amount and not that any excess payment is made. Similarly, a sum of Rs.15.03 lakh has been admittedly utilized for the construction of the school building and the compound wall; since, the school was on the side of highway, the said compound wall on a warfooting was erected for the safety of school children. Here also there is no allegation of any excess payment or pocketing of public money. Ideally speaking, sanction/permission of the competent authorities ought to have been taken is true. However, the explanation offered by the delinquent employee that she had applied for the same, has not been duly considered at least as a mitigating factor in the fitness of things.
3.4 The other charge that the delinquent employee had deployed regular teachers of some school to other schools wherein there were no teachers and that, to the eventual vacancies guest teachers on contract basis have been engaged, has been duly established. This according to the Petitioners could not have been done without the permission of higher ups. The delinquent has offered a plausible explanation that the exams were nearing and the said arrangement was done during a warlike situation so that no prejudice is caused to the students. In matters of imparting education to the young minds, one cannot show laxity; a school without a teacher is no school. Though this charge has been proved, in what circumstances the said act was done has not been examined by the competent authority and by the Tribunal, either. Be that as it may.
3.5 There is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the delinquent employee that the punishment awarded falls foul of the doctrine of proportionality. The doctrine of proportionality is one of the important facets in the realm of disciplinary proceedings vide COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK vs. COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENAL CO-OPEATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION1 . The severity of punishment should commensurate with the gravity of proven charges. Where punishment is highly disproportionate to the guilt, the same is unsustainable. For the above three charges, no reasonable mind in the armchair of the disciplinary authority would have awarded the punishment of removal from service, although it is simpliciter, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the delinquent employee, who has put in a long & spotless service of little less than a quarter century. Such a punishment shocks the conscience of Court and therefore, needs to be substituted.
3.6 Ideally speaking, once the charges are proved in a properly constituted disciplinary proceeding, ordinarily, what punishment should be awarded to the delinquent is a matter left to the domain of disciplinary authority. However, we chose not to remand the matter for consideration afresh at the hands of said authority since entire material is before us and both the sides did not insist that there should be a remand. In the fitness of things, we are of a considered opinion that a lesser punishment can be awarded here itself.
In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed in part; the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside; the finding of guilt suffered by the Respondent – delinquent employee is restored; the punishment of compulsory retirement having been modified, we direct withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The Respondent – employee shall be reinstated in service forthwith sans back wages but with continuity of service.
Costs made easy.
