Failure to follow statutory disciplinary procedures and principles of natural justice vitiates internal departmental proceedings.

The petitioner, a Chief Manager at Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited (BVFCL), was served a memorandum of charges on 24.04.2024 alleging solicitation of money

An Enquiry Officer (EO) conducted proceedings and submitted a report on 01.11.2024, concluding that a final finding was "not possible" due to lack of documentary evidence and the inability to verify the authenticity of audio clips

Subsequently, without the Disciplinary Authority (DA) passing a final order on the first enquiry or issuing a disagreement note, the respondents issued a fresh order dated 04.02.2025 initiating another "internal departmental enquiry"

The petitioner challenged this second notice as an impermissible de novo enquiry initiated without following statutory procedures

1. Whether the order dated 04.02.2025, initiating a fresh departmental enquiry, was legally sustainable under the Service Rules

2. Whether the respondents followed the mandatory procedure prescribed for the imposition of major penalties under Rule 33 of the BVFCL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2006

BVFCL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 2006, specifically Rule 33, which mandates the delivery of articles of charges, statement of imputations, and a list of witnesses/documents when initiating major penalty proceedings

Rule 34, which requires the Disciplinary Authority to record written reasons for disagreement with an EO's findings and furnish a "disagreement note" to the delinquent employee before proceeding further

principles of Natural Justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, holding that if a statute prescribes a specific method for an act, it must be performed in that method or not at all

The court observed that the Respondents failed to conclude the first enquiry as per Rule 34, which requires the DA to either accept the report or formally record a disagreement

While the respondents argued the notice dated 04.02.2025 was a "standalone" fresh enquiry based on new allegations from a workers' union and not a de novo enquiry, the court found it procedurally deficient

The court reasoned that Rule 33(3) is mandatory; any proceeding capable of resulting in a major penalty must be initiated by delivering a formal charge memo with supporting evidence

Since the order dated 04.02.2025 was issued without these documents, it violated statutory protections and the principles of natural justice

The court emphasized that public enterprises must strictly adhere to their own service rules when the employee’s livelihood and reputation are at stake

The court granted the department liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, provided they strictly follow the statutory Rules and afford the petitioner a sufficient opportunity to defend himself; the interim order staying the recruitment process for the DGM (Marketing) post was vacated