Mool Chandra vs Union of India
Background
The appellant, a government officer, was placed under suspension in 1997 and chargesheeted solely on the allegation that he had deserted his wife and two school-going children in 1985 and was living separately with another woman. His wife later filed an affidavit withdrawing her complaint, saying there had been a misunderstanding, but the inquiry officer still proceeded and found him guilty of desertion (though not of living with another woman). This led to his dismissal from service in 2000. After years of litigation, including an earlier round where the Tribunal found the dismissal disproportionate, a fresh application challenging a related penalty order was ultimately dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court on the ground of delay.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the punishment imposed was wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, especially since there was no real evidence establishing the charge and the complainant wife herself had withdrawn her complaint and was never examined to prove it. The Court noted there cannot be a searching judicial review of the quantum of penalty in the ordinary course, but here the finding of guilt itself was unsustainable on the facts. Rather than remitting the matter back (which would prolong things further), the Court itself set aside the impugned orders, citing the appellant's advanced age (68 years) and the complete absence of evidence against him. The appeals were allowed with all consequential benefits to be granted within three months, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A disciplinary or dismissal order cannot stand if the underlying evidence collapses, especially when a complainant withdraws her complaint and is never examined, and courts will step in directly to correct manifestly disproportionate punishment rather than send an elderly litigant back through more rounds of process.