Disciplinary review and proportionality: proved misconduct stands, but removal from service may be reduced if excessive.

Judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to the decision-making process, so a court will not reappraise a proved charge where the delinquent has admitted unauthorized absence and the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority according to procedure. The finding of guilt was therefore sustained. The doctrine of proportionality, however, applies to punishment, and an extreme penalty may be interfered with if it is wholly disproportionate or one that no reasonable employer would impose. On the admitted facts, removal from service was held excessive, but the misconduct still warranted sanction, so reinstatement was ordered without back wages for the intervening period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the disciplinary finding of guilt in a case where the delinquent admitted the charge of unauthorized absence. (ii) Whether the penalty of removal from service was so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to warrant judicial interference.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the disciplinary finding of guilt in a case where the delinquent admitted the charge of unauthorized absence.

Analysis: Judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to the decision-making process and does not permit the court to act as an appellate authority over factual findings. Where the delinquent unequivocally admits the charge and the enquiry is held by a competent authority in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the finding of guilt is fully supported and no interference is warranted in the absence of procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or a perverse conclusion.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the finding that the charge of unauthorized absence stood proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty of removal from service was so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to warrant judicial interference.

Analysis: The doctrine of proportionality applies in judicial review of punishment in disciplinary proceedings. Even where misconduct is proved, the punishment may be interfered with if it is wholly disproportionate, unduly harsh, or such that no reasonable employer would impose it in the facts of the case. On the admitted facts of prolonged absence, followed by a resignation attempt and an explanation showing absence was not accompanied by deliberate defiance in the strict sense, the extreme penalty of removal was held to be excessive. At the same time, the misconduct called for some punitive consequence, and denial of back wages was considered an appropriate balancing measure.

Conclusion: The penalty of removal from service was held to be disproportionate, but the respondent was denied back wages for the period between removal and reinstatement.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary finding was sustained, but the punishment was moderated by restoring employment without back wages, reflecting limited judicial intervention on proportionality grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of disciplinary action, a proved charge supported by admission will ordinarily not be disturbed, but the punishment may be modified if it is grossly disproportionate and no reasonable employer would have imposed it in the circumstances.

---