Summary
The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s direction to impose an appropriate minor penalty on a postal officer whose procedural lapses were proved but bribery charges failed. Non-reference to the vigilance authority caused no prejudice on these facts and did not justify a clean slate. Compulsory retirement was, however, disproportionately harsh for the misconduct actually established. The authority was directed to implement the Tribunal’s order within eight weeks with consequential benefits.
Issues
- Whether failure to obtain vigilance advice vitiated the disciplinary proceedings on these facts.
- Whether compulsory retirement was disproportionate and a minor-penalty direction justified.
Held
- With bribery allegations rejected and only procedural irregularities established, absence of vigilance reference caused no prejudice to the officer. The sustained findings, based partly on his admissions, could not be erased on that ground. (¶ 15-18)
- Judicial review does not ordinarily substitute a court’s factual assessment for the disciplinary authority’s, but disproportionate punishment remains reviewable. Compulsory retirement was harsh in light of the charges actually proved. (¶ 19)
- The Tribunal properly left selection of the appropriate minor penalty to the authority. Its order was restored for implementation within eight weeks with all resulting consequential benefits. (¶ 20-22)
Result
Appeals allowed in the stated terms; High Court judgment set aside and Tribunal’s minor-penalty direction restored. Parties to bear their own costs.