Even minor penalties require a disciplinary enquiry when factual charges are denied.

The petitioner, posted as Chief Safety Officer/Executive Engineer, Workshop and Garage, Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Power Station, Birsinghpur, was proceeded against for alleged negligence in maintaining records relating to company vehicles, including diesel consumption, log-books, vehicle running, average, fuel consumption, and other expenses.

A show-cause notice dated 13 March 2015 was issued, which the petitioner answered on 18 April 2015 by denying the allegations. A further notice seeking additional explanation was issued on 16 June 2015, and the petitioner submitted his reply on 30 June 2015.

Without conducting a regular disciplinary enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments by order dated 26 September 2015. On appeal, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one increment by order dated 28 January 2016.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the factual charges had been denied and could not lawfully have been adjudicated without an enquiry.

Whether a disciplinary authority may impose the minor penalty of withholding annual increments without conducting a disciplinary enquiry where the delinquent employee has denied factual charges?

Whether the punishment orders dated 26 September 2015 and 28 January 2016 were invalid for breach of the principles of natural justice?

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, that although withholding increments may constitute a minor penalty, the delinquent employee must be given an opportunity to explain the charges; further, where the charges are factual and are denied, an enquiry is the minimum requirement of natural justice and cannot be dispensed with.

The Court also relied on its decision in Santosh Kumar Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 27031 of 2024, and other coordinate Bench decisions applying the same principle.

The Court found that the petitioner had not merely failed to respond; he had submitted replies specifically denying the factual allegations and providing supporting facts and material.

Although the respondents contended that the petitioner had been afforded sufficient opportunity through show-cause notices and that statements of the petitioner and complainant had been recorded, the Court held that such opportunity did not satisfy the requirement applicable when factual charges are disputed.

Applying O.K. Bharadwaj, the Court concluded that the denial of the charges triggered the obligation to hold an enquiry before determining the petitioner’s guilt and imposing the penalty. The disciplinary and appellate orders were therefore rendered contrary to natural justice.

It quashed the disciplinary authority’s order dated 26 September 2015 imposing stoppage of two increments and the appellate order dated 28 January 2016 reducing the punishment to stoppage of one increment.

The disciplinary authority was granted liberty to proceed with a departmental enquiry from the stage of the petitioner’s reply, if so advised, in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.