A disciplinary dismissal is unsustainable when the employee is denied an opportunity to answer the charges and a fair hearing.

The petitioner, a Bank clerk with more than 19 years’ service, was suspended in April 2019 following his implication in a CBI proceeding.

The Bank issued him a charge-sheet on 13 May 2020 and appointed an Enquiry Officer at the same time; the petitioner was not given time to submit a written reply.

The petitioner, who had a 50% disability, said he could not attend on 29 May because he had suffered an accident and been admitted to Apollo Hospital.

The Disciplinary Authority dismissed him on 10 August 2020, and the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal on 19 October 2020.

He challenged the enquiry and both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceeding was procedurally unfair because the petitioner was not given time to reply to the charge-sheet and the Enquiry Officer was appointed when the charge-sheet was issued.

2. Whether the Enquiry Officer acted unfairly by closing the enquiry without granting an adjournment after the petitioner reported his hospital admission and requested another hearing date.

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice in disciplinary proceedings: an employee must have a meaningful opportunity to answer the charges and participate in the enquiry, and an enquiry should not be closed arbitrarily when a reasonable request for an adjournment is made.

The Court also held that, on the facts of this case, appointing the Enquiry Officer while issuing the charge-sheet, without allowing time for a reply, was impermissible.

The Court cited no specific statute, Bank regulation, or precedent.

The petitioner was not allowed time to respond to the charge-sheet, and the Enquiry Officer was appointed at the same time it was issued.

Further, the petitioner’s absence on 29 May was supported by material concerning his accident and hospital admission, and he had requested that the enquiry be adjourned.

Instead of fixing another date, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and submitted the report shortly thereafter.

The Court considered these defects, in the context of the COVID-19 period, to have deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend himself; the disciplinary and appellate orders therefore could not stand.

It directed the petitioner to apply for the documents needed to reply within three weeks of receiving the judgment; the Bank was to provide the requested documents within six weeks thereafter, and the petitioner was then to receive six weeks to submit his reply.

The Bank was directed to proceed in accordance with its regulations and dispose of the matter expeditiously.

The Court made clear that the quashing of the dismissal and any reinstatement would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending CBI proceeding.