Departmental inquiry vitiated if mandatory procedural rules and natural justice principles are violated.

The applicant, Vishnu Shankar Prasad, a Group A Gazetted Officer, was serving as Chief Engineer in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.

He alleged that after he exposed financial irregularities related to inflated invoices from Indian Highway Management Company Ltd. (IHMCL), he was victimized, removed from his charge, and transferred to the allegedly non-existent post of Chief Engineer at Silchar on March 27, 2015.

The applicant joined at Silchar on June 13, 2016, but found no office, staff, or infrastructure.

He subsequently applied for earned leave due to his wife's serious illness, which was initially sanctioned but later rejected retrospectively after an unusually long period.

A memorandum of charges was issued on March 14, 2018, alleging unauthorized absence from duty since July 29, 2016.

A departmental inquiry followed, which the applicant contended was biased, lacked proper procedure, denied him the opportunity to present defence evidence, and was conducted by an inquiry officer with a conflict of interest.

The inquiry officer submitted a report on March 11, 2020, holding the applicant guilty.

Despite the applicant’s representations, the disciplinary authority, after consulting the UPSC, passed a dismissal order on March 11, 2022, while the matter was pending before the Tribunal.

The applicant challenged this dismissal order (OA No. 2536/2022) and sought release of his withheld financial and retiral dues (OA No. 2459/2022), including GPF, 7th Pay Commission arrears, salary from June 2016 to superannuation, leave encashment, gratuity, and pension.

The respondents argued that the inquiry was proper, the dismissal proportionate, and that the financial claims were untenable due to his unauthorized absence and dismissal.

They also stated that an excess payment of salary of Rs. 4,63,411/- was recovered from his GPF.

1. Whether the departmental inquiry conducted against the applicant for unauthorized absence adhered to the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the applicant was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of his unpaid salary, GPF, and other retiral and pensionary benefits, considering the dismissal order and his claims of illegal transfer and procedural improprieties.

The Tribunal primarily applied the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 14, which mandates the procedure for conducting major penalty proceedings, requiring the presenting officer to produce documentary evidence, examine witnesses, and provide the delinquent employee a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and produce defense evidence.

It relied on the principle of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of a fair inquiry.

The Tribunal cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010)2 SCC 772, which held that without the department leading evidence and providing cross-examination opportunities, an inquiry is not conducted in accordance with law.

Further, it referenced Union of India & Anr. v. DS Manchanda, 2011 SCC Online Del 1263, and Shailender Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine CAT 2357, affirming similar procedural requirements.

The Tribunal also considered the doctrine of proportionality, requiring that the penalty imposed be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the inquiry proceedings suffered from serious procedural irregularities as the presenting officer did not examine the witnesses listed in the charge memorandum, and no substantial documentary evidence was formally proved during the inquiry.

The inquiry report’s conclusions were largely drawn from departmental records without evidence production and proof in a regular inquiry, thus denying the applicant the opportunity to test evidence through cross-examination or defend himself effectively.

This failure violated the mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and the principles of natural justice, going to the root of the matter and vitiating the entire disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted that the charge was merely unauthorized absence, not corruption, making the involvement of vigilance procedures irrelevant to curing fundamental procedural defects.

Considering the procedural deficiencies, the nature of the charge, the applicant's long and unblemished service record, and the fact that he had already retired, the extreme penalty of dismissal was deemed disproportionate.

The Tribunal held that allowing dismissal to stand would not meet the ends of justice, especially since the procedural flaws vitiated the very basis of the dismissal.

The applicant shall be treated as having retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, and his service shall be regulated accordingly for retiral and pensionary benefits.

OA No. 2459/2022 was also allowed.

The respondents are directed to process and release the admissible retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, and other consequential benefits, treating the applicant as retired.

They must verify and pay the entire GPF amount with applicable interest, and examine and release admissible salary arrears and 7th Pay Commission benefits.

This exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

There is no order as to costs.