Departmental Inquiry Cannot Be Waived Despite Non-Participation of Delinquent Employee; Major Penalty Without Evidence Is Void

The petitioner, a Computer Operator at the District Education Office, Vidisha, was placed under suspension on 30.12.2016 for unauthorized absence since 21.11.2015.

A departmental inquiry was initiated via a charge-sheet dated 01.02.2017 alleging misconduct and insubordination.

Despite service of the charge-sheet through paper publication, the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority terminated his services on 25.02.2019, stating that holding a full inquiry was impossible due to the petitioner’s non-participation.

The petitioner's subsequent appeal was rejected on 19.12.2021.

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily on the ground that a major penalty was imposed without a regular departmental inquiry.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority could waive the requirement of holding a regular departmental inquiry for a major penalty solely because the delinquent employee failed to participate in the proceedings.

2. Whether the termination order violated the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966.

The Court applied Rule 14(20) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which mandates that if a government servant fails to submit a defense or appear in person, the inquiring authority must hold the inquiry ex-parte.

The Court further relied on the principles established by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010), which held that even in ex-parte proceedings, the department must produce evidence and examine witnesses to prove charges, as the inquiry officer acts as an independent adjudicator and not a prosecutor.

Furthermore, Article 311(2) of the Constitution mandates a reasonable opportunity of being heard, which cannot be bypassed unless it is not "reasonably practicable" under Article 311(2)(b).

The Court observed that while the charge-sheet was deemed served through paper publication, the disciplinary authority erred by concluding that the petitioner’s non-participation made the inquiry "impossible".

The Court reasoned that under Rule 14(20) of the CCA Rules, the absence of the delinquent employee does not absolve the department of its burden to prove the charges; rather, it necessitates an ex-parte inquiry where evidence must still be recorded.

The Court found that simply treating charges as admitted without an inquiry is a violation of natural justice and statutory rules.

It further clarified that the exception under Article 311(3)—dispensing with an inquiry—was not attracted here because the failure to conduct the inquiry was due to a procedural shortcut by the authority rather than a genuine impracticability.

The Court quashed the termination order dated 25.02.2019 and the appellate order dated 29.12.2021. It restored the departmental proceedings from the stage of the charge-sheet and directed the petitioner to submit a reply within 45 days. If the petitioner has superannuated, he is to be treated as retired under suspension and entitled to provisional pension under Rule 64(1)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, pending the outcome of the inquiry. The petition was allowed.