Disciplinary Proceedings VII

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

M. Duraisamy was serving as a Postal Assistant. He committed fraud and admitted so. M. Duraisamy deposited entire defrauded amount. He was imposed penalty of ‘removal’. Central Administrative Tribunal modified punishment from ‘removal’ to ‘compulsory retirement’.

Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569 observed, once all procedural requirements had been complied with, Courts would not ordinarily interfere with quantum of punishment imposed upon delinquent employee. Doctrine of Proportionality would not be invoked when misconduct stands proved.

Substituting punishment of ‘removal’ to ‘compulsory retirement’ is unsustainable. No sympathy was warranted.  

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Union of India v. M. Duraisamy, [Criminal Appeal No. 2665 of 2022] decided on 19.04.2022.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.