https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221525 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. en-us Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:16:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221525 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221525