Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary inquiry findings and punishment unsustainable.

The applicant, a Motor Driver–I at the Wagon Repair Workshop, Jhansi, was appointed in 2002

Following a "tool-down strike" on June 1–2, 2022, organized by an employees' union over incentive bonuses, the applicant was suspended and subsequently served a major penalty charge sheet on July 4, 2022

The charges alleged participation in an illegal strike and the physical assault of a Senior Section Engineer (SSE)

An Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed, and despite the applicant’s objections regarding the non-supply of documents and the IO's impartiality, the inquiry concluded with a report dated March 6, 2023, finding him guilty

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) passed an order of removal from service on April 13, 2023

The applicant’s subsequent appeal and revision petition were dismissed on July 13, 2023, and July 9, 2024, respectively

The applicant challenged these orders before the Tribunal alleging procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the non-supply of relevant documents and the alleged bias of the Inquiry Officer?

2. Whether the inquiry proceedings violated the principles of natural justice due to the lack of opportunity for the applicant to cross-examine prosecution witnesses?

3. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on sufficient evidence or were perverse and unsustainable in law?

Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 9, which mandates a detailed procedure for imposing major penalties, including the right of the delinquent employee to cross-examine witnesses

Principles of Natural Justice, which require that no person be condemned unheard and that evidence used against a delinquent must be subject to cross-examination to be admissible

Rule 14 (special procedure) was not invoked, making the procedural requirements of Rule 9 mandatory

The Tribunal found that while the documents listed in the charge sheet were largely supplied [p. 6], the inquiry process was fundamentally flawed.

It observed that the IO failed to record the dates of witness statements and, more critically, failed to provide the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was adverse

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the applicant’s admission of his "presence" at the scene was sufficient for conviction, noting that such admission did not extend to the specific allegations of intimidation or assault

The Tribunal characterized the inquiry as "casual," noting that the IO’s report was cryptic and failed to address the applicant’s defense

Because the procedures under Rule 9 were not strictly followed—specifically regarding the maintenance of order sheets and the right of cross-examination—the Tribunal held that the findings were based on conjectures rather than cogent evidence

It held that the violation of natural justice rendered the inquiry and subsequent orders unsustainable

The Tribunal quashed the punishment order (13.04.2023), the appellate order (03.07.2023), and the revision order (09.07.2024)

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits within three months

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, provided it is conducted strictly in accordance with the law