Disciplinary orders cannot stand when the authority ignores the defence and relies on material outside the inquiry record.

H. B. Rathod was suspended on 27 August 2007 and charged with misconduct.

The inquiry officer found three of the four charges proved and one not proved.

After Rathod responded to a second show-cause notice, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and ordered recovery of ₹17,52,711, by orders dated 29 November 2017.

His appeal was dismissed on 12 October 2020.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal allowed his applications and quashed the disciplinary and appellate orders.

The State and its officials challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the High Court.

Whether the Tribunal erred in quashing the disciplinary and appellate orders imposing punishment and directing recovery.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and recovery order were sustainable when the recovery was not supported by the inquiry findings and the inquiry procedure had material deficiencies.

The judgment cites no specific statute, rule, or precedent.

It applies the principles that disciplinary findings and resulting punishment must be supported by the inquiry record, and that an inquiry must follow fair procedure, including furnishing relevant statements and providing an opportunity to cross-examine oral witnesses.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had identified material defects in the proceedings: the recovery amount was not supported by the charge memo or inquiry report, and the disciplinary authority relied on material not available in the inquiry.

The record also indicated that statements had not been furnished and oral witnesses had not been cross-examined.

In light of these deficiencies, the High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the impugned orders and found no error warranting interference.

Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as no longer surviving.