Failure to furnish the inquiry report before punishment vitiates disciplinary action.

The petitioner, an employee of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, was proceeded against under a charge-sheet dated 15 May 2009. He submitted his reply and participated in the departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report finding him guilty of the charges.

The Disciplinary Authority forwarded the inquiry report along with the punishment order dated 5 January 2010, imposing demotion to the post of Project Man (D-6), without first giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit a representation against the inquiry findings. The punishment was subsequently modified by order dated 13 January 2010 to demotion to Project Man (D-7). The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected on 24 April 2010. He therefore challenged the punishment orders and the appellate order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated Rule 23 of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 by failing to furnish the inquiry report and provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit a representation before imposing punishment.

Whether the punishment orders dated 5 January 2010 and 13 January 2010, and the appellate order dated 24 April 2010, were legally sustainable despite non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 23.

The Court applied Rule 23 and Notes (i) and (ii) of the HAL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984. These provisions require that, where a departmental inquiry has been conducted, a copy of the inquiry report must be furnished to the delinquent employee before any minor or major penalty is imposed, and the employee must be given an opportunity to submit a representation against the report; the Disciplinary Authority must then consider the report and the representation before deciding the appropriate punishment.

The governing principle is that disciplinary action must comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed by the applicable service rules and with the requirements of procedural fairness.

The Court found that although the petitioner had participated in the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer had submitted a report holding him guilty, the Disciplinary Authority forwarded the inquiry report together with the punishment order instead of first supplying the report and inviting the petitioner’s representation.

The respondents did not produce any document demonstrating compliance with the requirement under Rule 23. The subsequent consideration of the matter by the Appellate Authority did not cure the initial procedural violation, particularly as the appellate authority itself proceeded on the basis that the inquiry report and punishment order had been supplied together. Since the prescribed disciplinary procedure had not been followed, the punishment orders and the order confirming them were held unsustainable.

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to recommence the proceeding from the stage of supplying the inquiry report and to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the charges and directed that the proceeding be completed, preferably within six months from receipt of the judgment, subject to there being no legal impediment. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.