In Brief
A postal officer was charged with procedural lapses and bribery allegations. After a full inquiry, the bribery charges were rejected but procedural lapses were proved. The disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement. The High Court set aside the proceedings, citing the employer's failure to obtain prior Central Vigilance Officer approval before issuing the charge memo. The Supreme Court held that once an inquiry concludes that bribery allegations are unproved, there is no prejudice to the employee from missing CVO approval. Since only procedural lapses were substantiated, not serious misconduct, the compulsory retirement was grossly disproportionate. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's reinstatement order, and restored the Tribunal's direction to impose an appropriate minor penalty instead.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.