Even minor penalties require departmental enquiry when factual charges are denied by the delinquent employee.

The petitioner, while posted as Medical Officer, Kailaras, in 2008, was responsible in connection with a vehicle engaged as a “Janani Express” by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti.

Allegations were made regarding irregular payment for the vehicle, including non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, unattested logbooks, and non-verification of beneficiaries.

A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, who denied the allegations and stated that the payments had been made with the approval of the Senior Officer. He also requested a fresh enquiry and supplied supporting documents.

Without conducting a regular departmental enquiry, the respondents passed the order dated 14 September 2018 imposing a penalty of Rs. 98,922 upon him. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether a disciplinary authority may impose even a minor financial penalty merely after obtaining the employee’s reply, when the employee has denied the factual allegations in the show-cause notice, without conducting a departmental enquiry.

Whether the impugned order dated 14 September 2018 was liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice and for being non-speaking and unreasoned.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and applied the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

Relying on O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180, it held that even where a minor penalty is proposed, the delinquent employee must be given an opportunity to submit an explanation; further, where the charges are factual and are denied, an enquiry must be conducted to determine those disputed facts.

This enquiry requirement constitutes the minimum content of natural justice and cannot be dispensed with. A disciplinary order must also be reasoned and speaking.

The allegations against the petitioner concerned disputed factual matters relating to the engagement of the vehicle, maintenance and attestation of logbooks, verification of beneficiaries, and the legality of payments.

The petitioner expressly denied financial irregularity, asserted that the payments had been approved by a Senior Officer, and requested a re-enquiry.

Consequently, the disciplinary authority could not treat the allegations as established merely on the basis of the petitioner’s reply.

Applying O.K. Bhardwaj, the Court held that a regular enquiry was necessary to determine the disputed facts and that the respondents’ direct imposition of the penalty, through a non-speaking order, violated natural justice.

The respondents were directed to refund the amount if it had already been recovered.

Since the petitioner had retired, the Court granted no liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings against him.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.