A delinquent who voluntarily abandons an inquiry cannot later allege denial of natural justice.

The applicant, a Post Graduate Teacher, challenged the rejection of his bias petition against the inquiry officer, the inquiry report, a penalty reducing his pay by five stages for five years with cumulative effect, and his subsequent transfer from Kozhikode to Sangli.

The disciplinary inquiry arose from four charges, including corporal punishment of students and deficiencies in teaching.

The Tribunal had previously directed that the inquiry be completed within specified periods, ultimately warning that non-completion within the extended period would render the process non est.

The respondents maintained that he had participated in the inquiry, cross-examined witnesses, and then left the proceedings without cross-examining one witness or signing the depositions.

Whether the bias petition against the inquiry officer was improperly rejected and the inquiry was thereby vitiated.

Whether the inquiry report was non est because it was not completed within the Tribunal’s prescribed time.

Whether the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, contrary to Rules 14(16)–(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Whether the penalty was disproportionate or the transfer constituted a second punishment.

Rules 14(16)–(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules govern the stages of a disciplinary inquiry, including the charged employee’s opportunity to state a defence, examine defence witnesses, respond to circumstances appearing against him, and submit a written brief.

The Tribunal considered South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 201, for the principle that a bias objection should be raised at the earliest opportunity.

It also considered Ministry of Finance v. S.B. Ramesh, (1998) 3 SCC 227, concerning the inquiry authority’s obligation under Rule 14(18), even where an employee has been proceeded against ex parte; the Tribunal distinguished a case of initial non-appearance from one where the employee participates and subsequently abandons the inquiry.

A transfer is not punitive merely because it follows disciplinary proceedings; the record must support that it was imposed as a consequence of them.

The Tribunal found no material establishing bias and noted that the applicant had initially expressed no objection to the inquiry officer; it also found no record that he had requested a hearing on his bias petition.

It rejected the non est contention because the applicant’s own conduct, including the bias petition and other actions that prolonged the proceedings, contributed to the delay.

On procedural fairness, the Tribunal relied on the record that the applicant had cross-examined the department’s witnesses except SW-12, and that he and his defence assistant left the inquiry on 7 August 2019 without cross-examining that witness.

The applicant then did not respond to the direction to submit a written brief or seek a further opportunity.

The Tribunal therefore treated the case as one of voluntary abandonment after participation, distinguishing S.B. Ramesh. It also found the penalty proportionate to the proved charges and no evidence that the transfer was punitive.

It dismissed the Original Application and made no order as to costs.