### Disciplinary Action Vitiated by Breaches of Natural Justice Requires Remand to the Defective Stage

The respondent, a Stenographer at LIC, was issued a charge sheet on 15.03.2014 for using derogatory language against seniors and threatening criminal cases, allegedly violating Regulations 21, 24, and 39(1) of the LIC (Staff) Regulation, 1960

During the inquiry, the respondent’s request for specific documents and his choice of a Defense Assistant (Sri Binay Kumar Sinha) were denied

The inquiry proceeded ex-parte, leading to a punishment of "reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay" on 07.04.2015, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 14.12.2015

A Single Judge of the Patna High Court set aside these orders on 04.07.2025, citing violations of natural justice, and directed the restoration of pay with arrears

LIC appealed this decision via the present intra-court appeal

1. Whether the denial of documents and the rejection of the delinquent’s chosen Defense Assistant constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether, upon setting aside a punishment order on technical/procedural grounds, the Court should remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from the stage of the defect

The court applied the Principles of Natural Justice regarding the right to a fair hearing and supply of adverse material

Doctrine of Remand established by the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993), which stipulates that if a punishment is set aside for procedural lapses (like non-supply of reports), the proper relief is to allow the authority to resume the inquiry from the point of the defect rather than granting automatic exoneration

Chairman, LIC v. A. Masilamani (2013), holding that courts must remit cases to the Disciplinary Authority when an inquiry is found defective

State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh (2022), which specifically addressed the non-supply of documents mentioned in a charge sheet as a remediable procedural error

The Court agreed with the Single Judge that the inquiry was vitiated because the LIC failed to provide the documents upon which the charges were based and unreasonably restricted the respondent's choice of a Defense Assistant

The Court found that the Single Judge erred in law by directing the final restoration of pay and benefits without allowing the employer to complete the disciplinary process

Applying the B. Karunakar precedent, the Court reasoned that since the errors were procedural (violation of natural justice) rather than substantive, the "mechanical ritual" of full reinstatement with back wages was inappropriate

The Court determined that the disciplinary process must be "insulated from prejudice" by remanding it to the current Disciplinary Authority to ensure a fair trial while preserving the employer’s right to conclude the inquiry

The Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s direction to restore pay and arrears and remitting the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a fresh inquiry specifically from the stage where the defect occurred: providing the respondent with all necessary documents and allowing him a Defense Assistant as per the 1960 Regulations

The Court directed that this fresh exercise be completed within six months