No Leniency To Employee Merely Because He Deposited Defrauded Amount And No Loss Was Caused To Department : Supreme Court

While setting aside the order substituting the removal of an employee to that of compulsory retirement, the Supreme Court observed that punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority can't be substituted merely on grounds that the employee had voluntarily deposited the defrauded amount. A bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna made the observation in Union of India's special leave petition challenging Madras High Court's order confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal modifying the punishment imposed on a postal assistant from dismissal/removal from service to compulsory retirement. The bench set aside the High Court's impugned judgment and the Central Administrative Tribunal's order and restored the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of removing the delinquent employee from service. Case Title: Union of India and Ors vs M. Duraisamy, CA 2665/2022 Citation : 2022 LiveLaw 404 Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Merely because subsequently the employee had deposited the defrauded amount and therefore there was no loss caused to the department cannot be a ground to take a lenient view and/or to show undue sympathy in favour of such an employee.