Denial of opportunity to represent against Inquiry Report vitiates disciplinary proceedings and subsequent penalty orders.

The applicant, a Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was issued a charge memorandum on 19.10.2007 alleging execution irregularities and lack of quality control supervision for drain improvement works under orders dated 24.02.2003.

An Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on 31.03.2015 proving two charges.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect on 03.09.2015, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 16.08.2016.

The applicant challenged these orders, contending that he was denied an opportunity to represent against the Inquiry Report before the penalty was proposed and seeking parity with a similarly situated employee in Rohit Goel v. NDMC.

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders were sustainable in law given the alleged procedural lapse in providing the applicant an opportunity to respond to the Inquiry Report.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to relief based on the principle of parity with the decision in Rohit Goel v. NDMC.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in departmental inquiries as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Statement identifying the precedent set in Rohit Goel, JE v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. (OA No. 3679/2016), which held that actions of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the conduct of inquiries are liable to be quashed.

The court noted the High Court’s refusal to remand decades-old matters back to the DA due to the "long passage of time" and potential prejudice to the delinquent employee.

The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were identical to Rohit Goel v. NDMC, where the Tribunal had already granted relief, a decision subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

The court noted the applicant's specific grievance that the Respondents failed to provide an opportunity to represent against the Inquiry Report before the imposition of the penalty.

Following the doctrine of parity and judicial discipline, the Tribunal determined there was no reason to take a divergent view from the settled position in the connected matter.

Considering the age of the dispute (originating from 2003-2007), the court followed the High Court’s reasoning that a remand to the Disciplinary Authority at this late stage would be prejudicial.

The court held that the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits, which the respondents must settle within ten weeks of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.