Disciplinary punishment is vitiated when the enquiry report is withheld before the final decision.

The petitioner, a Head Constable (UB), was charged with gross negligence of duty while assigned to night-patrolling and naka-checking duty.

After the departmental enquiry, he received a second show-cause notice referring to the Enquiry Officer’s findings, but says the enquiry report was not supplied to him.

He raised that objection in his reply; the disciplinary authority nevertheless dismissed him the following day.

The appellate authority later rejected his appeal.

The State’s counsel fairly acknowledged that the enquiry report appeared not to have been furnished before dismissal.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority could impose dismissal without first furnishing the enquiry report and giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the findings.

2. Whether the appellate authority’s later review of the departmental record and hearing of the petitioner cured that procedural defect.

In Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, the Supreme Court held that furnishing the enquiry report forms part of the delinquent employee’s reasonable opportunity of defence.

In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, the Constitution Bench affirmed that the employee must have an opportunity to make a representation against the Enquiry Officer’s findings before the disciplinary authority makes its final decision.

The judgment also records that the proceedings were initiated under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 and the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964; the petitioner’s separate challenge concerning Rule 9 was left undecided.

The petitioner specifically objected before the disciplinary authority that he had not received the enquiry report, yet dismissal followed without furnishing it or allowing a meaningful response to the findings.

This denied him the opportunity required by Ramzan Khan and Karunakar.

The appellate authority’s subsequent review and personal hearing could not replace the opportunity that had to be given before the disciplinary authority decided the penalty.

The Court therefore did not address the petitioner’s other challenges to the evidence or the conduct of the enquiry, leaving the merits open.

It quashed the dismissal order dated 16 November 2023 and the appellate order dated 28 February 2024, and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement as Head Constable (UB).

The authorities may resume the departmental proceeding from the stage of furnishing the report, allow the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to respond, and then decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

Consequential service and monetary benefits are to be considered after conclusion of the proceeding; the merits of the charge remain open.