Failure to afford an employee the opportunity to lead evidence and explain adverse circumstances vitiates the disciplinary inquiry.

The petitioner, a conductor employed since 1986, was charged with failing to issue tickets to three passengers and collect their fares.

Following a domestic inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 18 March 2002.

The Labour Court upheld the inquiry and rejected his industrial dispute by award dated 13 January 2009.

In his writ petition, the petitioner challenged, among other matters, the inquiry’s compliance with Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971.

The inquiry record indicated that, after the Management’s evidence, the proceedings were closed without giving him the prescribed opportunity to present evidence or examine witnesses.

Regulation 23(16)–(18) of the C & D Regulations governs the employee’s opportunity to state a defence after the disciplinary authority’s case is closed, present evidence and witnesses, and be questioned by the Inquiring Authority on circumstances appearing against him.

The Court treated these procedural requirements as requiring an effective opportunity to present the employee’s case before the inquiry is completed.

Relying on Yellappa v. Management of NWKRTC, the Court held that closing an inquiry without the opportunity required by these provisions violates both the Regulations and the principles of natural justice.

The Court distinguished Manjunath v. Management of NWKRTC because compliance with Regulation 23(18) was not in issue there.

The order sheet showed that the Management witness was examined on 7 January 2002 and that the employee was asked to file a defence statement.

Although the record was unclear about whether, or when, the statement was submitted, the Inquiring Authority proceeded to close the inquiry without allowing the employee to lead evidence or examine witnesses as contemplated by Regulation 23(17)–(18).

The Court rejected the Management’s argument that the omission caused no prejudice: the inquiry had continued for about eight years, and the resulting dismissal deprived the petitioner of his employment and livelihood.

The Labour Court had failed to address this procedural defect.

It allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned Labour Court order, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration after affording the parties an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal was directed to pass an appropriate order within six months of receiving the certified copy; the parties, being represented by counsel, were directed to appear before it on 27 October 2026.