Proportionality in departmental punishment led to reconsideration where irregular advances and service record were not properly weighed.

Judicial review of departmental punishment remains limited, but interference is justified where the authority ignores relevant factors such as the gravity of misconduct and the employee's service record, or where the penalty is grossly disproportionate. The charges were treated as irregular advances and procedural lapses, with no finding of fraud or misappropriation. In that context, and given the appellant's long service, the quantum of punishment required fresh consideration. The removal from service was therefore not finally sustained, and the High Court was directed to reconsider the punishment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant was disproportionate to the proved charges and whether the matter should be remitted for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment.

Analysis: The permissible scope of judicial review over departmental punishment is limited, but interference is justified where relevant factors bearing on the gravity of misconduct and the employee's service record are not properly considered, or where the penalty is so harsh as to shock the conscience. The charges against the appellant were treated as involving irregular advances and procedural lapses, without any finding of fraud or misappropriation. In that backdrop, and in view of the long service put in by the appellant, the question of punishment required fresh consideration by the High Court.

Conclusion: The punishment of removal was not finally sustained; the issue of quantum of punishment was directed to be reconsidered by the High Court and the appellant succeeded to that extent.

---