In Brief
A postal official was charged with procedural lapses and alleged bribery. The departmental inquiry rejected all bribery charges but found the procedural lapses proved. He was dismissed by compulsory retirement. The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside this punishment as disproportionate, directing a minor penalty instead. The High Court ordered full reinstatement with all benefits, citing non-compliance with a 2005 circular requiring Central Vigilance Officer approval before initiating vigilance-related disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that since bribery charges were rejected and no prejudice resulted from the procedural oversight, the Tribunal's approach of examining punishment proportionality was correct. The Court restored the Tribunal's order directing a minor penalty, allowing the appeals.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.