Court finds removal from service disproportionate after over two decades of unblemished service; directs 25% back wages and family pension for deceased employee's legal heirs, while upholding misconduct findings.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 12, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) moderated the harsh punishment imposed on Virendra Kumar Srivastava, a former Deputy Nazir in the Civil Judge's Court at Purwa, Unnao, who was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings for drunken and abusive conduct near the residence of a judicial officer. The Court found that while misconduct was proved, the penalty of removal was shockingly disproportionate considering the petitioner's long and unblemished service history since 1977.
The petitioner had faced four charges arising out of a single incident on the night of November 23, 1994. These included allegations of abusive behavior towards a Home Guard officer, appearing intoxicated and half-naked at the residence of the Munsif Magistrate, creating a disturbance near the court premises, and being detained overnight by the police. The departmental inquiry held one charge not proved but sustained the other three based on oral evidence and admissions by the petitioner, despite the non-examination of the medical officer and police personnel involved.
The petitioner challenged his removal and the appellate order rejecting his departmental appeal before the High Court. The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters-interference is warranted only where there is a violation of procedure, natural justice, or no evidence to support findings. It found the inquiry was conducted in compliance with the U.P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976, and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself.
However, the appellate authority had failed to independently consider the proportionality of the punishment as mandated under Rule 7(4) of the 1976 Rules. The appellate order did not address the failure of one charge, the petitioner's over 20 years of service without prior adverse record, or whether removal was excessive. The Court held that removal after such a long tenure for the misconduct proved was unduly harsh.
Given that the petitioner had passed away in 2006 during the pendency of the writ petition, and more than three decades had elapsed since the incident, the Court exercised its power to mould relief instead of remanding the matter. The removal and appellate orders were set aside to the extent of the penalty. The petitioner is to be treated as if he continued in service until his death for purposes of pay fixation, terminal benefits, and pension. His legal heirs are entitled to 25% of the back wages for that period, and his widow is entitled to family pension and death-cum-retirement benefits. The Court, however, declined the prayer for compassionate appointment due to the long lapse of time.
This judgment highlights the necessity of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings, especially for long-serving employees, and clarifies that while misconduct cannot be overlooked, penalties must be just and reasonable, with appellate authorities applying independent scrutiny on punishment.
Bottom Line:
Departmental inquiry - Scope of judicial review - Non-examination of medical officer and police officer not fatal where misconduct is otherwise proved by oral evidence tested in cross-examination - Appellate authority must independently consider proportionality of punishment under Rule 7(4) of the U.P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976 - Removal from service after long unblemished service held shockingly disproportionate - Court moulded relief and granted notional continuity, 25% back wages and family pension to legal heirs.
Statutory provision(s):
U.P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1976 - Rules 5, 7(4)
