Departmental inquiry must conclude within four months after affording cross-examination and relevant defence evidence opportunities.

The applicant, a retired General Manager (Projects) of HUDCO, challenged, among other matters, the interlocutory orders dated 19 December 2025 and 10 July 2026 passed by the Inquiring Authority in a departmental inquiry initiated in 2012.

Two prosecution witnesses had been examined, but the applicant had not yet been given an opportunity to cross-examine them.

The applicant had also submitted a list of 31 defence witnesses, while the respondents contended that most were irrelevant to the inquiry.

The departmental inquiry had remained pending for a considerable period.

Whether the applicant was entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine the two prosecution witnesses already examined in the departmental inquiry.

Whether the relevance of the applicant’s proposed defence witnesses should be determined by the Inquiring Authority.

Whether the applicant was entitled to be generally questioned after completion of the defence evidence in accordance with the applicable rules.

Whether directions were necessary for expeditious completion of the departmental inquiry, which had been pending since 2012.

The Tribunal applied the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice governing departmental inquiries, including the right of a delinquent employee to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to present relevant defence evidence.

It accepted the parties’ agreed position that the Inquiring Authority would determine the relevance of the proposed defence witnesses and that the applicant would thereafter be generally questioned in accordance with the applicable service rules.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that a long-pending disciplinary inquiry should be brought to its logical conclusion expeditiously and without unnecessary adjournments.

The respondents undertook, on instructions, to provide the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the two prosecution witnesses, thereby addressing the principal procedural grievance.

As to the 31 defence witnesses, the Tribunal considered it appropriate for the Inquiring Authority, rather than the Tribunal at that stage, to assess their relevance; the parties agreed that this determination would be final.

The Tribunal also recorded the respondents’ undertaking that the applicant would be generally questioned after the defence evidence in accordance with the applicable rules.

Since these agreed measures addressed the grievances raised in the O.A., no surviving issue required adjudication on merits.

However, considering that the inquiry had been pending since 2012, the Tribunal imposed a four-month period for its completion.

The applicant was to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the two prosecution witnesses; the Inquiring Authority was to decide the relevance of the proposed defence witnesses; and the applicant was to be generally questioned after completion of the defence evidence in accordance with the applicable rules.

The departmental inquiry was directed to be concluded within four months from receipt of a copy of the order, with neither party permitted to seek unnecessary adjournments.

No order as to costs was made.