Court sets aside termination order, remands for reconsideration of punishment.

The court set aside the termination order and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the punishment within twelve weeks. The court found the punishment disproportionate and lacking proper consideration, emphasizing the non-speaking nature of the orders and the absence of financial loss. The court invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice, considering the petitioner's age and the time elapsed since the incident.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to termination order, denial of charges, non-speaking orders, disproportionate punishment, violation of procedural formalities, delay in disposal of appeal, remand of the matter.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the termination order based on three charges, primarily related to violating purchase order procedures. The petitioner denied the charges, explaining lack of awareness and absence of financial loss. The first respondent imposed removal of service as punishment, upheld by the second respondent after a delay of over five years. The petitioner argued that the orders were non-speaking, disproportionate, and lacked proper enquiry procedures.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the punishment was disproportionate and based on a lack of awareness, urging the court to intervene. The respondent emphasized the violation of rules and the need for prior approval for purchases. The respondent rejected the plea based on the delay in appeal disposal and individual case considerations.

The court acknowledged the admitted violation of purchase guidelines but noted no financial loss to the respondent. It criticized the lack of proper enquiry procedures, emphasizing the non-speaking nature of the orders. The court found the punishment disproportionate and lacking proper consideration, leading to a remand of the matter for fresh assessment by the appellate authority.

In its judgment, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration and refixation of the punishment within twelve weeks. The court considered the petitioner's age and the time elapsed since the incident, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice.

---