Enhancement to dismissal requires a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 14.

The applicant, a Postman, was charged under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with unauthorised absence from 3 June 2009 to 9 June 2014.

The Inquiry Officer recorded that he admitted the charge, and the disciplinary authority imposed withholding of the next increment for three years with cumulative effect. The third respondent later enhanced the penalty to dismissal. After the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, dismissal was again ordered on 5 April 2017; the applicant’s revision was rejected on 28 January 2019. He challenged those orders before the Tribunal.

Whether the alleged admission of the charge, without a regular inquiry involving evidence and an opportunity to test it, could support enhancement of the penalty to dismissal

Whether the order enhancing the penalty was sustainable where the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice had not been followed

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governs formal disciplinary inquiries; Rule 29 provides revisional powers.

A preliminary inquiry is distinct from a regular disciplinary inquiry and cannot substitute for one or supply evidence for findings of guilt where the employee was not afforded the opportunity to participate and cross-examine witnesses.

In State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, the Supreme Court held that even in an ex parte inquiry the department must produce evidence and the inquiry officer must independently assess it.

Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 4 SCC 301, reiterates that preliminary-inquiry material cannot be used as evidence in a regular inquiry without the safeguards of natural justice.

The Tribunal also referred to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024, 2025 INSC 555, and the principles on remittal stated in A. Masilamani v. LIC, (2013) 6 SCC 530, and Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, (2017) 2 SCC 308.

The Tribunal found that the finding of guilt rested substantially on the applicant’s alleged admission at a preliminary sitting. No full-fledged inquiry had been conducted, no listed witnesses had been examined for the applicant to cross-examine, and the documents had not been formally proved.

Because dismissal was imposed by enhancing the original penalty, the Tribunal held that the procedural safeguards required for a regular inquiry could not be dispensed with on the basis of the alleged admission. It therefore concluded that the enhanced penalty could not stand in the absence of a procedurally compliant inquiry.

It directed the applicant to cooperate and the respondents to complete the inquiry and pass an appropriate order within six months of receiving the Tribunal’s order. The OA was disposed of without an order as to costs.