Disciplinary review is limited to legality and some evidence; tribunal cannot reweigh proof or reduce penalty absent shockingly disproportionate punishment.

Non-supply of the inquiry report did not invalidate the dismissal because the governing Constitution Bench ruling applied prospectively and the order pre-dated it. Delay in starting disciplinary proceedings was not fatal in cases involving concealed disproportionate assets, since investigation may take time and delay alone does not vitiate action. Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, without satisfactory explanation, constituted misconduct, and judicial review was confined to legality, natural justice and some evidence; the Tribunal could not reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. The Tribunal was also not justified in reducing the penalty, as punishment can be interfered with only if shockingly disproportionate. Dismissal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of the inquiry report invalidated the dismissal order; (ii) whether delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings vitiated the action; (iii) whether possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income constituted misconduct and whether the Tribunal could reappreciate the evidence on that question; (iv) whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the punishment and substituting compulsory retirement for dismissal.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of the inquiry report invalidated the dismissal order.

Analysis: The later Constitution Bench ruling governing supply of the inquiry report was held to apply prospectively, and the dismissal in the present case had been passed before that ruling came into force. The employee therefore could not claim the benefit of non-supply of the report.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was not invalid on the ground of non-supply of the inquiry report.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings vitiated the action.

Analysis: In cases involving concealment or tracing of disproportionate assets, investigation may necessarily take time because evidence must link the public servant with the property or pecuniary resources. Mere delay, without more, was held not to be fatal and did not by itself establish violation of constitutional guarantees.

Conclusion: The delay did not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income constituted misconduct and whether the Tribunal could reappreciate the evidence on that question.

Analysis: A public servant found in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income, and unable to satisfactorily account for them, commits criminal misconduct and is amenable to departmental action. In judicial review, the Court or Tribunal is confined to examining competence, compliance with natural justice, and whether the finding rests on some evidence; it cannot reassess the evidence as if sitting in appeal.

Conclusion: Such possession constituted misconduct, and the Tribunal was not entitled to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence.

Issue (iv): Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the punishment and substituting compulsory retirement for dismissal.

Analysis: The disciplinary authority is the primary judge of facts and punishment, and the Tribunal cannot ordinarily replace its view on penalty merely because a different punishment appears preferable. Interference is permissible only where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or unsupported by relevant considerations. On the proved gravity of the misconduct, the reasons used by the Tribunal were held to be irrelevant.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment; dismissal was restored.

Final Conclusion: The employee's challenge failed, while the Union's challenge to the reduction of punishment succeeded, resulting in restoration of the dismissal order and rejection of the Tribunal's modification.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary matters, judicial review is limited to legality, natural justice, and existence of some evidence, and a tribunal cannot reweigh evidence or substitute punishment unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate.

---