Departmental enquiry is not vitiated by procedural irregularities absent demonstrable prejudice to the delinquent.

The appellant, a Patwari, joined Patwari Halka Rohania, District Panna, on 20.02.2003.

A complaint was made in 2006 alleging manipulation of revenue records and issuance of a patta in favour of another person.

After a preliminary enquiry, the appellant was suspended on 27.01.2009 and served with a charge-sheet dated 06.03.2009 alleging unauthorized manipulation of revenue records.

During the departmental enquiry, he initially participated but was proceeded ex parte on 09.09.2010.

The Enquiry Officer considered the material produced on 24.01.2011 and submitted a report finding the charges proved.

The Collector dismissed the appellant from service on 09.05.2011, and his departmental appeal was dismissed on 22.11.2011.

The learned Single Judge dismissed W.P. No. 2593/2012 on 16.02.2022, leading to the present writ appeal.

Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated by violation of natural justice because witnesses not named in the original list were examined and documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were allegedly not supplied to the appellant

Whether the appellant could be held responsible for manipulation of revenue records when the underlying revenue proceedings had concluded before he joined the concerned Patwari Halka

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining to interfere with the orders of dismissal and rejection of the departmental appeal

The Court applied Rule 14(15) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which permits the Enquiring Authority, where necessary, to allow evidence not included in the original witness list, call for new evidence, or recall and re-examine witnesses, subject to procedural safeguards.

It further applied the principle that a departmental enquiry is not vitiated by an alleged procedural irregularity unless the delinquent employee establishes denial of a meaningful opportunity and demonstrable prejudice.

The Court also reiterated the limited scope of judicial review over departmental findings, holding that the High Court does not re-appreciate evidence as an appellate authority where the departmental findings are supported by the material on record.

The authorities cited by the appellant—including Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, Dhananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka, Moni Shankar v. Union of India, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, and Union of India v. H.C. Goel—were held distinguishable on the facts.

The Court held that the appellant had initially participated in the enquiry but subsequently remained absent and was proceeded ex parte on 09.09.2010; he therefore could not later claim that he had been denied an opportunity to inspect documents or contest the evidence.

The examination of additional witnesses did not automatically invalidate the enquiry because Rule 14(15) expressly authorizes such evidence, and the appellant’s failure to participate prevented him from showing any resulting prejudice.

Similarly, the appellant failed to identify any material prejudice caused by the alleged non-supply of documents.

On the substantive charge, the Court accepted the State’s position that the misconduct related not to the original 2000–2001 revenue proceedings, but to a subsequent unauthorized entry or manipulation made during the appellant’s tenure as Patwari.

His posting in 2003 consequently did not, by itself, absolve him of responsibility for the later maintenance or alteration of the revenue records.

Since the departmental authorities had recorded findings on the basis of available oral and documentary material, re-appreciation of those findings in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

It held that no violation of natural justice causing demonstrable prejudice was established, that examination of witnesses outside the original list was permissible under Rule 14(15), and that the appellant’s posting date did not preclude responsibility for subsequent manipulation of revenue records.

The order dated 16.02.2022 dismissing W.P. No. 2593/2012 was affirmed, and Writ Appeal No. 270 of 2022 was dismissed.