A disciplinary authority must consider a delayed reply submitted before imposing punishment.

The applicant, an Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police and formerly posted as an SHO, was proceeded against for allegedly failing to properly brief and supervise the investigation of a complaint made by Ms. Neha, which was treated as negligence, carelessness and lack of supervision.

A show-cause notice was issued on 20.07.2017. Although the applicant did not submit his reply within the stipulated period, he submitted it on 09.12.2017, before the disciplinary authority passed the penalty order. He also furnished an explanation for his non-appearance before the Enquiry Officer.

The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of “Censure” on 14.12.2017, stating that no reply had been submitted. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on 06.06.2019.

The respondents admitted that the reply had been filed on 09.12.2017 but contended that it was belated and that the disciplinary authority had already decided the matter on the note sheet on 05.12.2017.

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate authorities violated the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the applicant’s reply and explanation submitted before the penalty order was passed.

2. Whether the alleged negligence, lack of supervision or error in investigation, in the absence of wilful misconduct, mala fides or grave consequences, could constitute misconduct warranting the punishment of “Censure”.

3. Whether the impugned disciplinary and appellate orders were liable to be quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a disciplinary authority must consider the employee’s explanation before imposing a penalty, even where the reply is submitted belatedly.

It also relied on Union of India & Ors. v. J. Ahmed, 1979 (2) SCC 236, wherein the Supreme Court held that mere omission, negligence, inefficiency, error of judgment, lack of leadership or failure to attain the highest standard of administrative efficiency does not, by itself, constitute misconduct unless the lapse is sufficiently serious, blameworthy and attended by grave consequences.

The Tribunal further applied the requirement that an appellate authority must independently and meaningfully consider the relevant material rather than dispose of an appeal through a cryptic order.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s reply dated 09.12.2017 was admittedly available before the disciplinary authority passed the penalty order on 14.12.2017.

Therefore, the authority could not lawfully proceed on the erroneous assumption that no reply had been submitted, without examining the applicant’s defence.

The appellate authority also failed to call for and consider the relevant record and rejected the appeal in a cryptic manner.

Applying J. Ahmed, the Tribunal held that the allegations essentially concerned negligence, inadvertence, error of judgment or deficiency in performance, with no specific finding of mala fide intention, wilful misconduct or grave consequences sufficient to elevate the conduct to “misconduct”.

The failure to consider the reply and the absence of a legally sufficient finding of misconduct consequently vitiated both impugned orders.

The applicant was held entitled to all consequential benefits, including career progression, as if the punishment had not been imposed.

The respondents were, however, granted liberty to deal with the matter afresh in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, if considered necessary.

The directions were to be complied with within eight weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.