Failure to furnish the enquiry report before dismissal violates natural justice and vitiates the disciplinary action.

The petitioner, an Assam Police Constable appointed on 4 January 1994, was implicated in Agia P.S. Case No. 17/2017 concerning an alleged robbery by persons wearing police uniforms. He was arrested on 6 February 2017, released on bail on 8 May 2017, and placed under suspension.

A departmental proceeding was initiated under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007, Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-II, Article 311 of the Constitution, and Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

After an initial enquiry, a further/de-novo enquiry was ordered on 23 August 2018. The petitioner alleged that he was not notified of or permitted to participate in the subsequent enquiry and that the earlier enquiry report was not supplied to him.

The Superintendent of Police dismissed him from service on 3 July 2023. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Western Range, on 29 February 2024.

The respondents conceded that the enquiry report had not been furnished before the dismissal order, although they maintained that the departmental proceeding had been properly conducted.

Whether the dismissal order could be sustained when the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority took the final decision.

Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of defence and procedural fairness in violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution.

Whether the Court was required to examine the petitioner’s other contentions concerning the alleged de-novo enquiry, disparity in punishment, pendency of the criminal case, and merits of the charges.

The Court applied Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007, Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-II, Article 311 of the Constitution, and the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which collectively require adherence to prescribed disciplinary procedure and a reasonable opportunity of defence.

Relying principally on Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, the Court held that where the Enquiry Officer is different from the Disciplinary Authority, furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent employee and permitting a representation against its findings form part of natural justice and the reasonable opportunity guaranteed in disciplinary proceedings.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 73, concerning parity in punishment among similarly placed co-delinquents, but did not adjudicate that issue.

The respondents did not dispute that the enquiry report was withheld before the dismissal order was passed.

Applying B. Karunakar, the Court found that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to examine the findings, identify errors or procedural deficiencies, and submit an effective representation before the Disciplinary Authority reached its final conclusion.

This omission constituted a violation of natural justice and vitiated the decision-making process leading to dismissal.

Since the failure to furnish the report was independently sufficient to invalidate the dismissal, the Court declined to determine whether the later enquiry was de-novo or merely a continuation, whether the punishment was disproportionate compared with that imposed on co-delinquents, whether the criminal case affected the departmental proceeding, or whether the charges were proved on merits.

Both orders were quashed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith.

The authorities were permitted to resume the departmental proceeding from the stage of furnishing the enquiry report, after which the petitioner must be given a reasonable opportunity to submit his representation and a fresh decision must be taken in accordance with law.

The Court left consequential service and monetary benefits to be determined by the competent authority under the applicable rules after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, and expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges.