Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by withholding defence documents and relying on unproved statements.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Postmaster, challenged two disciplinary orders arising from separate proceedings.

During hearing, he did not press his challenge to the order dated 09.01.2013, with liberty to agitate that grievance afresh; consequently, that challenge was dismissed as not pressed.

The surviving challenge concerned the order dated 18.09.2014, by which 50% of the applicant’s monthly pension was withheld for five years.

Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had commenced through a memorandum dated 23.07.2009.

The applicant retired on superannuation on 31.07.2009 while the proceedings were pending.

The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved in his report dated 28.03.2012.

After considering the applicant’s representations and obtaining UPSC advice, the respondents imposed the pensionary penalty.

Whether non-supply of documents which had been permitted by the Inquiry Officer denied the applicant a reasonable opportunity of defence and violated the principles of natural justice

Whether reliance upon and exhibition of Avdhesh Kumar’s statement, without examining or summoning its author to prove it, vitiated the disciplinary inquiry

Whether the disciplinary authority’s failure to consider and deal with the applicant’s representations rendered the penalty order legally unsustainable

The Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing disciplinary proceedings against government servants, together with the principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of defence.

Relying on Manik Chand v. Union of India & Anr., it held that documents found relevant by the Inquiry Officer must be supplied, and their non-supply may prejudice the delinquent officer even if the documents were not relied upon in the charge memorandum.

Relying on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha and Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that documents relied upon in a disciplinary inquiry must be duly proved and cannot be treated as substantive evidence merely by reference or exhibition.

Under Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, supported by the Government of India O.M. dated 13.07.1981, the disciplinary authority is required to consider and give reasons addressing the delinquent employee’s representation; a mechanical or non-speaking order is impermissible.

The Tribunal found that, although the Inquiry Officer had permitted the applicant access to 16 of the 19 requested documents, the disciplinary authority did not supply them, stating that some were unavailable and others irrelevant.

Since their relevance had already been determined by the Inquiry Officer, withholding them without adequate justification denied the applicant a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

The Tribunal further found that Avdhesh Kumar’s statement was listed as a prosecution document, referred to and exhibited by the Inquiry Officer, and relied upon in finding the charges proved, but its author was neither examined nor summoned.

The statement therefore had not been properly proved, notwithstanding the respondents’ contention that other evidence established the opening of fake accounts.

Finally, the penalty order merely referred to the charges, alleged loss, inquiry report and UPSC advice, without addressing the grounds raised in the applicant’s representations.

This failure rendered the order non-speaking and contrary to the requirement of reasoned decision-making.

It granted the applicant all consequential benefits in accordance with law and directed the respondents to comply, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Given the age of the proceedings, the applicant’s retirement, and the delay in imposing the penalty, the Tribunal declined to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry and instead put the matter to rest.

The earlier challenge to the order dated 09.01.2013 remained dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the applicant to pursue it afresh in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.