Misconduct under service rules requires express basis, and unreasoned disciplinary punishment for advance defaults cannot stand.

A breach of house building or conveyance advance rules does not, by itself, amount to disciplinary misconduct unless the service rules expressly or by necessary implication treat it as such. The Court also held that punitive action in public employment must rest on reasoned findings; an inquiry report, disciplinary order, and appellate order unsupported by independent reasoning are arbitrary and liable to be quashed. On relief, reinstatement followed from the illegality of removal, but back wages were moderated because of alternative employment during part of the period and the employee's partial lapse in complying with the advance rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged defaults in relation to house building advance and conveyance advance amounted to misconduct under the applicable service rules; (ii) whether the findings and punishment were vitiated for want of reasons, non-application of mind, and arbitrariness; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

Issue (i): whether the alleged defaults in relation to house building advance and conveyance advance amounted to misconduct under the applicable service rules.

Analysis: The relevant service framework distinguished between general standards of conduct and enumerated misconduct. A breach of the advance rules, by itself, only attracted the consequences built into those rules, such as refund and interest, unless the conduct was specifically made misconduct under the disciplinary rules. The alleged failure to adhere to the time-schedule for utilisation or repayment of the advances did not, on the facts found, establish lack of integrity or conduct unbecoming of a public servant in the sense required by the disciplinary rules.

Conclusion: The alleged acts did not constitute misconduct punishable under the disciplinary rules.

Issue (ii): whether the findings and punishment were vitiated for want of reasons, non-application of mind, and arbitrariness.

Analysis: The inquiry report contained no reasoned finding supporting guilt, and the disciplinary order merely accepted those conclusions without independent reasoning. The appellate order also disclosed no meaningful consideration of the findings or the quantum of penalty. In public employment, where penal consequences follow, the authority must record reasons and act within the limits of the governing rules; arbitrary action and orders unsupported by reasons offend fairness and equality.

Conclusion: The inquiry findings, disciplinary order, and appellate order were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

Analysis: Once the removal was held illegal, continuation in service followed. However, the existence of alternative employment during part of the period affected the quantum of monetary relief. The proper relief was therefore not full back wages for the entire period, but a moderated award reflecting the intervening employment and the appellant's partial lapse in complying with the advance rules.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to reinstatement and 50% back wages for the relevant period, excluding the period of alternative employment.

Final Conclusion: The removal from service and the appellate confirmation were set aside, the appellant was declared to have continued in service, and monetary relief was granted on a reduced basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative punishment cannot rest on conduct that is not expressly or by necessary implication made misconduct under the governing rules, and every penal order in public employment must be supported by recorded reasons; arbitrary and unreasoned State action is liable to be struck down under the equality guarantee.

---