The Delhi High Court has upheld the compulsory retirement of a civilian employee of the Indian Air Force, ruling that financial irregularities and forgery cannot be protected merely because they are linked to union-related activities.
A division bench comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan dismissed the employee’s plea challenging an earlier order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had upheld disciplinary action against him.
The case involved a civilian carpenter posted at the Air Force Station in Faridabad. He was accused of collecting union subscription money from around 30 employees despite not being an authorised office bearer of the Civilian Karamchari Union. The charges also included allegedly forging receipt books and using the union’s registration number without permission.
The employee was served a chargesheet in 2016. An inquiry was later conducted after he reportedly failed to appear despite multiple notices issued over several months. Following the inquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement in May 2017.
The employee challenged the decision, arguing procedural irregularities and claiming the matter related to union affairs. However, the High Court held that misconduct involving integrity and financial accountability falls squarely within disciplinary rules applicable to government servants.
The bench observed that the allegations were not limited to participation in union activities, but involved unauthorised money collection and use of forged documents. It also noted that Rule 3(1) of the CCS Conduct Rules requires government employees to maintain integrity and avoid conduct unbecoming of public servants.
The Court further said there was no evidence of violation of natural justice during the inquiry process. It noted that findings of guilt had been consistently recorded by the inquiry authority, disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and the tribunal, supported by witness testimonies, documentary evidence, and the employee’s partial admissions.
Holding that the punishment was not disproportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct, the High Court refused to interfere with the disciplinary action.
