Disproportionate disciplinary punishment was substituted with a lesser penalty after proved charges were found only administrative.

Compulsory retirement imposed in disciplinary proceedings was found disproportionate to the proved misconduct, which was limited to two administrative charges and did not show serious delinquency. Judicial review does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as an appellate body, but interference is justified where the punishment is arbitrary, perverse, or shockingly excessive. The Court held that the penalty was not commensurate with the charges and substituted a lesser punishment, namely withholding of two increments for one year without cumulative effect, rather than remanding the matter, in view of the proposed penalty, the delay in the case, and the appellant's service stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed in departmental proceedings was disproportionate to the charges proved and liable to be substituted by a lesser penalty.

Analysis: The proved misconduct was confined to only two charges, both of which were administrative in character and did not disclose serious delinquency. Judicial review in disciplinary matters does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as an appellate authority, but interference is warranted where the punishment is arbitrary, perverse, or so excessive as to shock the conscience. The Court found that compulsory retirement was not commensurate with the nature of the proved charges. It also noted that the penalty proposed by the Government itself was withholding of two increments for one year without cumulative effect, which was the appropriate punishment on the facts. In view of the long pendency of the matter and the stage of service of the appellant, the Court substituted the punishment rather than remanding the matter.

Conclusion: The punishment of compulsory retirement was held disproportionate and was substituted with withholding of two increments for one year without cumulative effect, in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of disciplinary punishment, the court may interfere where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and may, in exceptional cases, substitute an appropriate lesser punishment.

---