Departmental punishment is unsustainable where relied-upon witnesses are not examined for cross-examination.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Traffic Inspector and former Conductor of the Delhi Transport Corporation, was appointed on 3 March 1983 and superannuated on 31 August 2018.

Following a vigilance check at Seemapuri Depot, where he was posted, he was suspended on 9 July 2010 and reinstated on 15 November 2010. A charge memorandum was issued on 28 August 2012 alleging irregularities relating to his deployment and duties in the Ticket Section.

The applicant’s earlier disciplinary proceedings culminated in penalty orders dated 28 January 2014, 2 April 2014 and 10 July 2014. In O.A. No. 131/2015, the Tribunal set aside those orders on 20 March 2018 and directed the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law.

A fresh inquiry report dated 17 July 2018 found the charges “partially proved.” Relying on that report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction by two stages in the pay scale, retrospectively up to the applicant’s retirement, and directed that the suspension period would not count as duty. The Appellate Authority rejected his appeal on 27 November 2018, communicated on 18 January 2019.

1. Whether the fresh departmental inquiry was vitiated because the material witnesses, including the Ticket Section In-charge and Bal Kishan, Cashier, were not examined and made available for cross-examination by the applicant

2. Whether the Inquiry Officer unlawfully shifted the burden of proving the charges from the respondents to the applicant by requiring him to establish his innocence

3. Whether the Tribunal should remit the matter for another inquiry or finally set aside the disciplinary proceedings and consequential orders, particularly in view of the applicant’s retirement

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice governing departmental inquiries, particularly the requirement that disputed charges must be established by the employer through legally reliable material and that the delinquent employee must be afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine material witnesses.

Relying on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Tribunal reiterated that mere production of documents is insufficient; their contents must be proved, and findings cannot rest on conjecture or suspicion.

It also relied on M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, (2006) SCC (L&S) 919, for the principle that the burden of proving the misconduct cannot be shifted to the delinquent employee.

The Tribunal further referred to Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors., 2026 INSC 205, which held that, where charges are denied, the department must examine witnesses to prove them and failure to do so vitiates the inquiry.

While acknowledging the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, as stated in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the Tribunal held that interference is justified where there is violation of natural justice, statutory procedure, or findings based on no evidence or perverse reasoning.

The Tribunal found that the Inquiry Officer substantially relied on the statements attributed to the Ticket Section In-charge and Bal Kishan, Cashier, to conclude that the allegations were partly proved, yet neither witness was examined during the inquiry or offered for cross-examination.

This defect was particularly material because the applicant had denied the allegations.

The Inquiry Officer also repeatedly faulted the applicant for failing to produce “solid proof” of his duties and posting, thereby placing upon him the burden of proving his innocence, although the initial burden lay on the department.

The Tribunal held that this was not a mere evidentiary irregularity but a violation of natural justice and a repetition of the very defect identified in the applicant’s earlier case.

Since the respondents had already been given an opportunity to conduct a lawful fresh inquiry and had again failed to comply with the applicable principles, and since the applicant had retired in 2018, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to order a further remand.

The applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits, including difference in pay and pension and other retirement benefits.

The respondents were directed to comply, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.