A regular employee cannot be discharged for misconduct without the departmental inquiry required by applicable service rules.

The applicant, a police constable appointed in 1990, proceeded on one day’s casual leave on 9 April 2008 but did not return to duty on 11 April. He attributed his continued absence to serious illness; the respondents treated it as unauthorised absence and relied also on his prior record of absence and disciplinary action.

The Senior Superintendent of Police discharged him by order dated 18 July 2008, and his departmental appeal was rejected on 27 February 2009.

After earlier proceedings and a High Court decision permitting a fresh challenge to both orders, the applicant filed the present application seeking their quashing and reinstatement.

1. Whether the applicant’s service could lawfully be terminated for alleged unauthorised absence without a regular departmental enquiry and an effective opportunity to defend himself.

2. If the impugned orders were procedurally defective, whether the applicant was entitled to unconditional reinstatement and consequential monetary benefits, or whether the respondents could hold an enquiry and determine those matters thereafter.

The Tribunal applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, together with the requirement to follow the applicable service rules before imposing a major adverse consequence on a regular employee.

It held that allegations, however serious or repeated, and an employee’s prior service record cannot substitute for a departmental enquiry where one is required under the applicable rules; nor can consideration of an appeal cure the absence of such an enquiry.

The order identifies no specific service-rule provision or judicial precedent.

The applicant had served for approximately 18 years when discharged, but had not been given an effective opportunity in a departmental proceeding to explain his absence, produce medical records, or meet the allegations.

Although the respondents’ evidence of repeated absence could be relevant to disciplinary action, it did not establish the charge through the required procedure.

The appellate authority’s consideration of the applicant’s record likewise did not replace a regular enquiry.

Because the Tribunal did not determine whether the absence was justified, it set aside the orders on procedural grounds while leaving the merits for the disciplinary authority.

The respondents were directed to permit the applicant to join duty, subject to the outcome of a regular departmental enquiry, which was to be completed preferably within six months of receipt of the order.

The Tribunal expressed no view on the merits of the charges; salary, back wages, and other service benefits for the intervening period were left for the competent authority to determine after the enquiry, in accordance with the applicable rules.