Disciplinary findings based on no evidence and non-supply of complaint violate principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a Staff Car Driver with the Delhi Financial Corporation (Respondent No. 1), was removed from service on November 9, 2006, following a sexual harassment complaint

The removal was based on a Departmental Committee report which found him guilty of misbehavior for allegedly making indecent comments to a female colleague on December 17, 2003

The petitioner challenged the termination, asserting that he was never provided a copy of the complaint and that the complainant was not examined during the inquiry

1. Whether the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Departmental Committee were in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the non-furnishing of the complaint and non-examination of the complainant

2. Whether the findings of the inquiry committee were based on cogent evidence or mere suspicion

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and back wages upon the setting aside of an illegal termination

The court applied the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that furnishing a copy of the complaint is a "basic requirement" for a fair inquiry

It relied on Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC 10], which mandates that findings in departmental inquiries must be based on "some evidence" with a degree of definiteness and not "mere suspicion"

Regarding back wages, the court cited Manorama Verma v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp (3) SCC 671] for the rule that back wages usually follow illegal termination, but balanced it with Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology & Natural History v. Mathew K. Sebastian [(2022) 20 SCC 692], which places the initial burden on the employee to prove they were not gainfully employed

The court found the inquiry report fundamentally flawed as it admitted there were no eyewitnesses to the incident

The only material witness, Mr. R.P. Singh, was not listed in the original chargesheet and his testimony only noted that the complainant looked "disturbed," which did not establish the petitioner's guilt

The court observed that the Committee erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the petitioner to explain why a false complaint would be filed

Furthermore, the failure to provide the petitioner with the complaint and the failure to examine the complainant during the proceedings constituted a gross violation of natural justice

Consequently, the court determined that the findings were based on "no evidence" and held the inquiry to be perverse and vitiated

The court ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. However, noting that the petitioner failed to provide an affidavit proving he was not gainfully employed during the interim, the court limited the award of back wages to 25% of the last drawn salary