#Proportionality in Punishment

Bombay High Court ruled that dismissal from service for misconduct must be proportionate to the offence, considering the employee's service record and statutory principles. The Court set aside a dismissal order, emphasizing that minor misconduct-such as verbal altercations-does not warrant termination, especially where no financial or institutional harm was proven.

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that dismissal from public service is a disproportionate penalty for minor administrative lapses in record-keeping, where no fraud, financial loss, or intentional misconduct is proven. This reinforces that disciplinary action must be calibrated to the gravity of the offense, protecting public employees from punitive overreach in routine bureaucratic errors.

Gujarat High Court rules that the 2019 amendment increasing the minimum sentence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act from 7 to 10 years does not apply retrospectively. The court dismissed the State's appeal for enhancement, reinforcing that statutory sentencing limits at the time of the offence govern punishment, not subsequent amendments.

Rajasthan High Court rules that disciplinary action must be proportionate to the offense, even when medical leave rules are violated. The court reduced a constable's removal to compulsory retirement, emphasizing that willful absence requires explicit findings and long service must be considered in punishment.

Delhi High Court reinforces that disciplinary penalties must strictly align with the degree of misconduct proved. Removal from service based on a 'partly proved' corruption allegation-without full evidentiary backing-violates principles of natural justice and proportionality, warranting judicial intervention for government employees.

CAT Ahmedabad invoked the doctrine of proportionality to set aside the dismissal of a postman who failed to deliver 10,000 mail articles due to staff shortages and medical leave. The Tribunal remitted the punishment for reconsideration, emphasizing that disciplinary action must account for mitigating circumstances and natural justice principles under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The Bombay High Court ruled that an air traffic controller's attempt to misappropriate government property, followed by voluntary restitution, warrants a proportional penalty of demotion rather than dismissal. This sets a critical precedent for disciplinary authorities to weigh intent, conduct, and remedial action when imposing penalties on public employees, reinforcing that absence of actual loss must mitigate punishment.

Supreme Court holds that lapse of time and compensation cannot substitute punishment for life-threatening assault; proportionality and deterrence are paramount in sentencing.

Rajasthan High Court clarifies that judicial review under Article 226 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of punishment unless shockingly disproportionate.