Kanwal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

The applicant had initially approached this Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the order dated 27.08.2010 whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed upon him, the order dated 05.05.2010 whereby the penalty of censure was imposed upon him in separate disciplinary proceedings, and the appellate order dated 02.08.2011. The Original Application was initially dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 25.04.2019. The applicant thereafter approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by filing W.P.(C) No. 16599/2023. Vide order dated 19.03.2024, the Hon’ble High Court set aside the orders dated 25.04.2019 and 02.03.2020 passed by this Tribunal and remanded the Original Application for fresh adjudication on merits. While doing so, the Hon’ble High Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and that the earlier orders were being set aside on account of the same having been passed ex parte. The applicant was accordingly afforded an opportunity to have his matter adjudicated on merits.

Upon remand, the Original Application again came to be dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 17.01.2025. Thereafter, the applicant filed M.A. No. 3947/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing M.A. No. 3946/2025 for restoration of the Original Application. The said M.A. was allowed vide order dated 18.02.2026 and O.A. No. 1188/2012 was restored to its original number for fresh adjudication. The matter has accordingly been heard afresh.

The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present O.A. are that the applicant was initially appointed as a Peon in the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) w.e.f. 24.03.1981 (F/N) and was thereafter appointed as a temporary LDC w.e.f. 01.04.1982. He was promoted as UDC on ad hoc basis on 25.05.1984 and subsequently promoted on regular basis w.e.f. 31.12.1989. He was thereafter granted Selection Grade/Time Bound Promotion w.e.f. 30.03.1999 and, during the course of his service, worked as SSA and Sr. SSA. The disciplinary proceedings in question were initiated against the applicant vide Memorandum dated 11.01.2007. Six Articles of Charge were framed against him. The substance of the allegations was that the applicant was a habitual late-comer, remained absent from duty without obtaining prior sanction of leave, failed to discharge the work assigned to him, failed to comply with the lawful directions of his superior officers and thereby exhibited lack of devotion to duty, misconduct and insubordination, in violation of Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the employees of EPFO by virtue of Regulation 27 of the EPF (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1962.

The applicant submitted his explanation to the charges. Since the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the same, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and a regular departmental inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held Articles of Charge I, V and VI as fully proved and Articles II, III and IV as partly proved. The report of the Inquiry Officer was supplied to the applicant and his representation was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 27.08.2010 imposing upon the applicant the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said order, which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 02.08.2011. In the meantime, separate disciplinary proceedings had also been initiated against the applicant under Rule 12 of the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971 in respect of his continued late attendance and unauthorized absence during the period July, 2009 to February, 2010. Upon conclusion of the said proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 05.05.2010, imposed upon him the penalty of “Censure”.

The principal grievance of the applicant is that the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It is contended that the allegations are not of such a serious nature as would justify the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement from service.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the O.A. and submitted that the applicant was a habitual late-comer and had repeatedly remained absent from duty without obtaining sanction of leave. It is submitted that the misconduct was not an isolated or occasional lapse but continued over a considerable period of time despite repeated warnings, office memoranda and directions issued by the superior authorities. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the instances of unauthorized absence and late attendance placed on record. It is submitted that during the year 1991, 13 days were deducted from the applicant’s Earned Leave on account of late attendance and, during the year 1992, another 19 days were deducted for the same reason. During the period from 01.01.2004 to 30.04.2005, the applicant reportedly attended office late on as many as 134 occasions. Further, a period of 55 days from 01.03.2004 to 22.05.2006 was treated as unauthorized absence. During the period January, 2008 to June, 2009, 87 days were deducted from Earned Leave on account of late attendance and 21 days on account of unauthorized absence. Again, during July, 2009 to February, 2010, a period of 72 days was treated as unauthorized absence.

The respondents have further relied upon various instances demonstrating the applicant’s alleged disobedience of the directions issued by his superior officers. An Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2005 was issued to him on account of his habitual late attendance and absence without sanctioned leave, requiring him to furnish an explanation along with applications for regularization of the period of unauthorized absence. According to the respondents, no reply was furnished by the applicant. Similarly, an Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2006 was issued requiring the applicant to explain the discrepancy in the name of his wife appearing in different service records. The respondents submitted that the applicant failed to furnish any reply thereto. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the directions issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and other superior officers requiring the applicant to clear pending claims within the stipulated period. It is alleged that, instead of complying with the directions, the applicant returned the memorandum with inappropriate remarks. The respondents have also referred to the pending PF claims at the applicant’s seat and the complaint/representation of the Section Supervisor alleging that the applicant had declined to comply with the directions of his superior officers.

We have carefully considered the pleadings on record and the material placed before us.

It is well settled that in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority. The scope of interference is limited to cases where the proceedings have been conducted in violation of the prescribed procedure, principles of natural justice have been violated, the findings are based on no evidence, or the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the misconduct proved as to shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal.

In the present case, the disciplinary proceedings were conducted pursuant to a formal charge memorandum. The applicant was afforded an opportunity to submit his defence. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, the inquiry was conducted and findings were recorded on each of the Articles of Charge. Articles I, V and VI were held to be fully proved, while Articles II, III and IV were held to be partly proved. The Inquiry Officer’s report was supplied to the applicant and his representation was considered by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the order of punishment.

We do not find any material on record to establish that the applicant was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself during the disciplinary proceedings. No procedural infirmity of such a nature has been demonstrated before us as would warrant interference with the disciplinary proceedings or the findings recorded therein. More importantly, the misconduct attributed to the applicant cannot be viewed as an isolated instance of late attendance or occasional absence. The material placed before us indicates a persistent pattern of late attendance, unauthorized absence, failure to attend to the assigned work and non-compliance with the directions of superior officers over a considerable period of time.

The nature of duties attached to the post held by the applicant is also relevant. The applicant was working as SSA/Sr. SSA and was entrusted with duties relating, inter alia, to receipt and processing of claims, forwarding of claims and other correspondence to the concerned sections, dispatch of claims, initiation of action for disposal of claims within the prescribed time and updation of member accounts. The respondents have specifically pleaded that repeated absence and failure to discharge the assigned work resulted in accumulation and delay in settlement of claims and required the work to be redistributed amongst other employees. The record further indicates that the applicant had been repeatedly cautioned and memos had been issued to him even prior to initiation of the major penalty proceedings. Despite such warnings and administrative action, the alleged conduct continued. In fact, during the pendency of the major penalty proceedings themselves, the applicant was proceeded against separately for late attendance and unauthorized absence for the period July, 2009 to February, 2010, ultimately resulting in imposition of the penalty of censure vide order dated 05.05.2010. The subsequent conduct of the applicant assumes significance while examining whether the penalty imposed in the earlier disciplinary proceedings was wholly disproportionate. The record, as placed before us, does not indicate that the applicant had mended his conduct despite repeated opportunities and warnings. Rather, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings demonstrate that the issue of late attendance and unauthorized absence continued even after initiation of the major penalty proceedings.

The applicant has also alleged that the punishment of compulsory retirement is excessive. We are unable to accept the said contention in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Compulsory retirement, though undoubtedly a major penalty, cannot be considered disproportionate merely because the charges do not involve financial irregularity or moral turpitude. Persistent indiscipline, habitual unauthorized absence, failure to perform assigned duties and deliberate disobedience of lawful directions of superior officers are matters which directly affect the functioning and discipline of a public organisation.

In the present case, the material on record discloses repeated instances of the applicant’s failure to attend office punctually, unauthorized absence, accumulation of official work and non-compliance with directions issued by superior authorities. The misconduct, therefore, cannot be characterized as a minor lapse.

We are also conscious of the fact that the applicant had rendered considerable length of service. However, length of service by itself cannot efface repeated acts of misconduct and indiscipline, particularly when the employer had, on several occasions, brought the deficiencies to the notice of the employee and afforded him opportunities to correct his conduct. We may also observe that the Hon’ble High Court, while remanding the matter vide order dated 19.03.2024, expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the impugned order or on the rival claims of the parties. The remand was necessitated only because the earlier order of this Tribunal had been passed ex parte, and the applicant was to be afforded an opportunity of being heard on merits. We have accordingly examined the matter afresh on the basis of the pleadings and material available on record.

On an overall consideration of the matter, we find that the findings recorded in the disciplinary proceedings are supported by the material available on record and that the applicant has failed to establish any procedural infirmity, violation of principles of natural justice or perversity in the findings warranting interference by this Tribunal. As regards the order dated 05.05.2010 imposing the penalty of “Censure”, the same relates to a separate set of instances concerning late attendance and unauthorized absence during the period July, 2009 to February, 2010. The respondents have stated that a separate disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 12 of the EPF Staff (CC&A) Rules, 1971, in which the applicant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself and, upon conclusion thereof, the penalty of censure was imposed. No material has been placed before us to demonstrate any illegality or procedural irregularity in the said proceedings warranting interference. The Appellate Authority has also considered the applicant’s challenge to the penalty imposed upon him. We find no reason to substitute our own view for that of the competent disciplinary authorities in the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting judicial intervention.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the Original Application. The challenge to the disciplinary proceedings, the order dated 27.08.2010 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, the order dated 05.05.2010 imposing the penalty of censure and the appellate order dated 02.08.2011 is accordingly rejected.

The Original Application is, therefore, dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.