A disciplinary inquiry cannot stand when court-ordered cross-examination is denied.

R. Baskar, an Executive Engineer who retired on 30 November 2016, was charged with accepting a bribe in connection with the selection of a Technical Assistant.

During the disciplinary proceedings, the High Court, by order dated 2 December 2016, directed that Baskar be permitted to cross-examine the alleged candidate, Gowthaman, and his mother, Vairamani, and that eligible terminal benefits be paid to him.

The Department later informed Baskar that the enquiry report had found the charges proved, although the ordered cross-examination had not taken place.

Baskar challenged the Department’s refusal to appoint a new Enquiry Officer in W.P.(MD) No. 8254 of 2017, and subsequently challenged the 2016 charge memo in W.P.(MD) No. 15862 of 2023.

Whether the enquiry report and subsequent disciplinary proceedings could stand when the Department had not complied with the earlier direction permitting cross-examination of the material witnesses.

Whether the charge memo was liable to be quashed because of the Department’s later failure to comply with the Court’s directions.

Article 226 empowers the High Court to intervene where disciplinary proceedings are conducted in breach of natural justice or of binding directions issued by the Court.

A delinquent employee must be afforded the ordered and reasonable opportunity to cross-examine relevant witnesses and to present defence evidence before the enquiry is concluded.

The Court also referred to Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India in its earlier order concerning the duration of suspension, but the present decision rested on the Department’s failure to provide the directed cross-examination opportunity.

The Department argued that Baskar had been given an opportunity to attend an enquiry on 14 December 2016 and had failed to avail it.

The Court found, however, that the Department produced no material showing that Gowthaman and Vairamani had been made available for cross-examination on that date; the notice to attend did not establish compliance with the specific direction to permit their cross-examination.

Concluding the enquiry without that opportunity made the enquiry report unsustainable.

The Court distinguished this procedural failure from the validity of the charge itself: the later non-compliance did not render the charge memo arbitrary or liable to be quashed.

Baskar was also to be allowed to present defence witnesses and documents.

The Enquiry Officer was directed to submit a report within six weeks, and the Department was directed to complete the remaining proceedings—including a second show-cause notice and personal hearing—within ten weeks of receiving the order.

The Department could replace the original Enquiry Officer if unavailable; a de novo enquiry was not ordered.

W.P.(MD) No. 15862 of 2023, challenging the charge memo, was dismissed.