Failure to examine the complainant and permit cross-examination of witnesses violates natural justice, vitiating disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant, an employee of the Northern Railway, was served a major charge sheet on January 31, 2013, for allegedly misbehaving and using un-parliamentary language toward his supervisor, Shri P.K. Harsh

Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order on January 31, 2015, awarding a punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale for three years permanently

The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on June 5, 2015

The applicant challenged these orders on the grounds that the principles of natural justice were violated, specifically noting that the complainant (Shri P.K. Harsh) was not produced as a witness and other witnesses were not subjected to cross-examination

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated due to the non-examination of the complainant and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses

2. Whether the matter should be remanded for a de novo inquiry considering the applicant's superannuation and the significant time elapsed

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash Saini vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors. (2026), which dictates that unless a delinquent employee accepts guilt, the employer must lead evidence and provide the employee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses

It further relied on the doctrine established in Allahabad Bank and Others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari (2017), which holds that a court may decline to remand a matter for fresh inquiry if a long time lag or supervening circumstances, such as retirement or ill health, would make a remand harsh or unfair

The Tribunal observed that while the inquiry report listed fifteen witnesses, the name of the complainant, Shri P.K. Harsh, was missing

The records indicated that several witnesses who signed the report were not present at the scene, and those who were examined were not tendered for cross-examination by the applicant

Applying the Jai Prakash Saini precedent, the Tribunal found that the department failed to meet its burden of proof, thereby vitiating the inquiry

Regarding the respondents' request for a remand, the Tribunal noted that the incident occurred 13 years prior and the applicant had retired in 2019 (now aged 67), as had the complainant

Following the Allahabad Bank precedent, the Tribunal determined that a de novo inquiry would be unjustifiable due to the applicant's age and the passage of time

The court declined to remit the matter for a de novo inquiry

It ordered the respondents to restore the applicant’s pay to the pre-punishment stage, provide notional fixation of pay, and recalculate all post-retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, to be paid within three months