Delhi HC upholds IAF staffer’s forced retirement over fake union receipts and illegal collections

The Delhi High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of a civilian employee of the Indian Air Force, ruling that acts of financial irregularity and forgery — even when linked to union-related activities — fall squarely within the ambit of disciplinary action.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan dismissed the employee’s plea challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had earlier upheld the penalty imposed on him.

“Acts which impinge upon integrity and probity cannot be excluded from disciplinary oversight merely on the ground that they are associated with union-related activities,” the court observed in its order recently.

Unauthorized collections, forged receipts

The petitioner, a civilian carpenter posted at the Air Force Station in Faridabad, was chargesheeted in April 2016 for allegedly collecting union subscriptions from nearly 30 civilian employees without authority. At the time, he was not an elected office bearer of the Civilian Karamchari Union.

He was also accused of forging receipt books by unauthorized using the Union’s registration number to legitimize these collections.

Following an ex parte inquiry — after the employee failed to appear despite multiple notices issued between 06/2016 and 09/2016 — the disciplinary authority ordered his compulsory retirement on May 1, 2017. The CAT subsequently upheld the decision.

An appeal filed under Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was rejected in 10/2017, with the appellate authority concluding that the misconduct stood “clearly established” based on evidence on record.

‘Misconduct hits integrity, cannot be shielded’

The High Court underlined that the charges went beyond mere participation in union activities, pointing instead to unauthorized monetary collection and the use of forged documents.

Such conduct, the court held, directly violates Rule 3(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which mandates absolute integrity and behavior befitting a government servant.

Rejecting claims of procedural lapses, the Bench noted that the inquiry adhered to due process and that adequate opportunity had been provided to the petitioner. No infirmity was found that could invalidate the proceedings.

Punishment not disproportionate

On the question of penalty, the court ruled that once charges affecting integrity are established —supported by documentary evidence, partial admission by the petitioner, and testimonies of eight witnesses — the quantum of punishment falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority.

It held that the penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be termed “shockingly disproportionate,” particularly given the nature of allegations involving financial misconduct and forged receipts.

Scope of judicial review limited

Reiterating settled law, the court emphasized that judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to examining the decision-making process, not re-evaluating evidence or acting as an appellate authority.

Interference, it said, is warranted only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or where there is a violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice—none of which were established in the present case.

The court noted that findings of guilt had been consistently recorded by the inquiry authority, disciplinary authority, and appellate authority, leaving no grounds for judicial intervention.