Judicial review of departmental punishment: removal from service upheld where dishonest reimbursement claims breached integrity duties.

In judicial review of departmental punishment, interference with the quantum of penalty is warranted only if it shocks the judicial conscience or is otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable, or tainted by an infirm decision-making process. Applying that standard, the Delhi High Court found that removal from service for repeated, deliberate and dishonest reimbursement claims, including false supporting information and overlapping treatment claims, was not disproportionate, particularly given the employee's duty of high integrity and the appellate authority's reconsideration after remand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the employee for claiming medical reimbursement contrary to the service rules was disproportionate and liable to be interfered with in judicial review.

Analysis: The employee had been found guilty on the surviving charges relating to repeated claims for overlapping treatment under different systems of medicine and furnishing false information in support of reimbursement claims. The Court noted that the employee held a position requiring a high standard of integrity and honesty, that the misconduct involved a series of deliberate acts over a long period, and that the appellate authority had reconsidered the matter pursuant to the earlier remand. Applying the settled limits of judicial review, the Court held that interference with punishment is warranted only where the penalty shocks the judicial conscience or is otherwise arbitrary, unreasonable, or vitiated by infirmity in the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The punishment of removal from service was not found to be disproportionate or shocking to the conscience, and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In judicial review of departmental punishment, interference with the quantum of penalty is justified only when the penalty is so disproportionate as to shock the judicial conscience or disclose an infirm decision-making process, especially where the misconduct involves breach of trust and dishonesty.

---