A disciplinary enquiry report is not ordinarily amenable to writ review before a final order.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the University’s Department of English, challenged the charge-sheet dated 24 November 2017 in WPA 2474 of 2018 and, after the enquiry report found the charges proved, challenged that report in WPA 7019 of 2019.

She alleged, among other things, that she was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor, and that the University’s Executive Council had accepted the report before considering her response.

The University disputed these allegations, asserting that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses.

The parties agreed that the outcome of WPA 2474 of 2018 would follow the decision in WPA 7019 of 2019.

1. Whether a writ petition challenging a charge-sheet or an enquiry report is maintainable before the disciplinary authority makes a final decision.

2. Whether the enquiry was vitiated by denial of an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or other procedural unfairness.

3. Whether the Enquiry Officer’s questioning of prosecution witnesses, the procedure for recording and finalising their depositions, or the University’s forwarding letter demonstrated bias or procedural illegality.

Under Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, a charge-sheet ordinarily does not give rise to a cause of action for a writ petition because it does not itself infringe a right; intervention may be warranted in exceptional circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction.

Under Managing Director, Madras Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajan, the High Court ordinarily should not intervene under Article 226 while disciplinary proceedings remain pending and the competent authority has yet to decide whether the charges are established or what action is warranted.

The Court also applied the principles that strict rules of evidence and procedure do not govern departmental enquiries, and that denial of natural justice must be assessed with regard to prejudice; it relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh on the latter point.

Judicial review does not entail reassessing the quality of witness evidence.

The Court held that both petitions were not maintainable: WPA 2474 of 2018 challenged only the charge-sheet, while WPA 7019 of 2019 challenged the enquiry report before a final disciplinary decision.

It nevertheless considered the merits of WPA 7019 in the alternative.

The record showed that the petitioner cross-examined 16 of the 17 prosecution witnesses; she declined to cross-examine PW1 because she had not received that deposition.

The Court found no material showing that the enquiry process caused relevant prejudice, and accepted that the petitioner and other participants had signed the minutes recording the proceedings and their finalisation.

Although the Enquiry Officer questioned witnesses, the Presenting Officer was also present and participated; the Court found no evidence that the Enquiry Officer acted to prejudice the petitioner.

It construed “accepted” in the forwarding letter as “received,” since the letter also sought the petitioner’s views on the report.

There was no order as to costs.