- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The respondent herein was served with a charge memo dated 2/3rd August 2000 under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Primary allegation against him was that he had forcibly entered into the office of Principal of Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan, Tura in the State of Meghalaya, where he was posted and working as Upper Division Clerk. It was on 24.5.2000 at around 11.30 a.m. The respondent was in a fully drunken state. - The respondent in his reply admitted the incident, namely he entered the office of the Principal in that condition. However, according to him, he did not enter the office of the Principal forcibly. The respondent also offered his unconditional apology for consumption of alcohol and requested the Disciplinary Authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter and pardon him. The Disciplinary Authority went through the reply. Since the respondent had admitted the charge, it was felt that in view thereof, no regular enquiry was needed and on the basis of admission, the orders dated 31st August 2000 were passed, imposing the penalty of 'removal' from the service for the said misconduct. Departmental Appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent knocked the Judicial Forum challenging both the orders passed by Disciplinary as well as Appellate Authority. He first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, dismissed his petition. Against the order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed Writ Petition. This time he succeeded in his effort inasmuch as by the impugned judgment, the High Court has found the penalty of removal from service to be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of his misconduct. Thus, invoking the doctrine of proportionality, the High Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is, further, directed that the respondent would not be entitled to two annual increments without any cumulative effect and no back wages for the intervening period shall be admissible to him. According to the High Court, the aforesaid penalty, instead of removal, would meet the ends of justice. It is in these circumstances, the appellant-school has approached this Court questioning the reasoning and rationale of the direction given by the High Court.
(3.) In the aforesaid backdrop, the only question to be examined in these proceedings is as to whether the penalty of removal from service inflicted upon the respondent herein by the appellant-school offends the principle of proportionality i.e. whether the penalty is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct to the extent that it shocks the conscience of the Court and is to be treated so arbitrary so as to term it as violative of Artice 14 of the Constitution;