Departmental Inquiry Founded Solely on Documentary Evidence Without Examining Witnesses Is Legally Vitiated and Untenable.

The petitioner, an employee at a petrol pump operated by the respondent-Corporation, was issued a charge-sheet on 13.09.2005 alleging financial irregularities, stock shortages, and fabrication of records between 2002 and 2005.

Despite the petitioner’s denial of charges, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with a departmental inquiry and submitted a report on 21.09.2007 finding him guilty.

Notably, the Inquiry Officer did not examine any witnesses to prove the charges during the proceedings.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service on 17.04.2008 and ordered a recovery of ₹2,43,078/-.

An intra-departmental appeal was dismissed on 19.10.2010.

Parallel to these proceedings, a Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner of the same charges on 06.09.2011, and a Civil Court dismissed the respondent’s suit for recovery on 23.08.2018.

1. Whether a departmental inquiry conducted without examining any witnesses in support of the charges is legally sustainable and compliant with the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the orders of removal and recovery can be sustained given the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner in both criminal and civil proceedings involving the same allegations.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and the legal standards governing departmental inquiries as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (AIR 2026 SC 1650).

An order of dismissal is vitiated if no oral inquiry is conducted and not a single witness is examined to prove disputed charges.

The court also considered the relevance of exoneration by competent Civil and Criminal Courts when the departmental action is based on the same set of facts.

The Court observed that despite the petitioner’s specific denial of the allegations, the respondent failed to examine a single witness during the inquiry to prove the charges.

The respondent’s contention—that the inquiry was based solely on documents and thus witnesses were unnecessary—was rejected; the Court held that in a departmental inquiry for a major penalty, the failure to conduct an oral inquiry or examine witnesses violates the fundamental principles of natural justice.

While recognizing the different standards of proof between criminal and departmental law, the Court found the petitioner’s full exoneration by the Criminal Court (upheld on appeal) and the dismissal of the respondent’s Civil Suit for recovery to be significant factors that undermined the validity of the departmental findings.

The Court quashed and set aside the orders dated 17.04.2008 (removal) and 19.10.2010 (appeal).

Given that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and the charges dated back to 2002, the Court declined to grant the respondents liberty to hold a de novo inquiry.

The respondents were directed to provide all consequential service and retiral benefits to the petitioner within three months.