The Supreme Court of India, examined the legality of disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retiring Senior Medical Officer for alleged misconduct. The Court quashed the penalty of a 2% permanent pension cut imposed by the disciplinary authority and subsequently modified by the High Court to a five-year term. The Court found the charges unsupported by evidence and the disciplinary proceedings tainted with arbitrariness and malice.

The apex court emphasized principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and the obligations of a welfare state. Additionally, it highlighted that election and polio-related duties had not been assigned to the appellant, invalidating the charges of noncompliance.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 - Rule 8 (Disciplinary Actions)
2. Constitution of India
   • Article 14: Equality before the law.
   • Article 16: Equality of opportunity in public employment.
   • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
   • Article 311(2): Procedural safeguards for dismissal/removal of civil servants.
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - On admissibility of hearsay evidence.

Background

1. The appellant, Bhupinderpal Singh Gill, served 34 years as a Senior Medical Officer under Punjab's Health Department and was served a charge sheet 11 days before retirement on March 31, 2017.

Allegations of Misconduct

2. Charges included:

   • Noncompliance with Election Commission directives.
   • Unauthorized leave.
   • Failure to participate in the pulse polio program.
   • Threatening a staff member with legal action.

3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

Inquiry and Proceedings

4. Inquiry conducted by a retired bureaucrat concluded that three of the four charges were proven but relied on speculative evidence and assumptions about moral obligations.

High Court Judgments

5. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant's challenge to the disciplinary penalty, while the Division Bench modified the penalty from a permanent 2% pension cut to a five-year reduction.

Appeal to Supreme Court

6. The appellant claimed:

   • The charges were frivolous and motivated by malice due to prior litigation against the Government of Punjab.
   • Violations of principles of natural justice.

7. The respondents argued procedural fairness and the adequacy of evidence in the disciplinary process.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness: Disciplinary proceedings violated procedural fairness, with inadequate consideration of the appellant's defense and reliance on hearsay evidence.

2. No Legal Evidence: The findings of the Inquiry Officer were unsupported by tangible evidence, with charges based on moral interpretations rather than factual misconduct.

3. Election Commission Guidelines: Exemptions for officers retiring within six months, as per Election Commission instructions, were ignored by the disciplinary authority.

4. Proportionality of Penalty: Even if the charges were proven, the penalty of a permanent pension cut was deemed disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Subjects:

Disciplinary proceedings against a retiring government employee under service rules and the scrutiny of their legality in the context of natural justice and procedural fairness.

• Natural Justice
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Service Rules
• Judicial Review
• Retirement Benefits
• Election Duty
• Pulse Polio Programme