Inquiry officer cannot seek disciplinary authority’s directions; non-supply of documents violates natural justice.

The applicant, Manoj Kumar, an ex-T.T.E. of Northern Railway, was dismissed from service due to allegations of indulging in indecent activity with a lady passenger on a train on June 4, 2009.

A chargesheet was issued on July 6, 2010, alleging failure to maintain integrity and devotion to duty, and acting in a manner unbecoming of a railway servant.

An Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed, who submitted a report on January 28, 2013, finding the charge proved.

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) accepted the report and dismissed the applicant on July 3, 2013.

His appeal and revision petition were subsequently dismissed on August 5, 2013, and October 9, 2013, respectively.

The applicant initially challenged these decisions before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3894/2013, which was dismissed on December 23, 2016, on the grounds of limited judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.

Aggrieved, the applicant filed Writ Petition (C) No. 6193/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court.

On December 19, 2024, the High Court quashed the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, finding the Tribunal's earlier judgment "completely non-speaking" and failing to consider key arguments, particularly regarding procedural fairness, natural justice, and the availability of legally sustainable evidence.

The High Court underscored the Tribunal's duty to examine whether the procedure followed was in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice, and whether the charge was supported by legally sustainable evidence, even while not re-appreciating evidence.

The High Court specifically noted the Tribunal's failure to consider the applicant's assertions regarding "no evidence," denial of a fair opportunity by the IO, and non-provision of requested documents.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant suffered from violations of the principles of natural justice and procedural rules under the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Whether the Inquiry Officer acted independently or was influenced by the Disciplinary Authority, thereby vitiating the inquiry.

Whether the non-supply of relied-upon documents and the denial of a defence helper and the opportunity for cross-examination deprived the applicant of an effective and fair defence.

Whether the reliance on inadmissible electronic evidence (CD) without proper authentication under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act rendered the findings unsustainable.

Whether the Inquiry Officer’s findings were based on no evidence or wholly unreliable evidence, making them perverse.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and fair play as fundamental to any civilised legal system, emphasizing that these are non-negotiable in disciplinary inquiries.

It also referenced specific provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, such as Rules 9(9), 9(10), 9(17) concerning the independence of the Inquiry Officer and the conduct of examination of witnesses, and Rules 9(15), 9(16) regarding the supply of documents and recording reasons for refusal.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal & Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 651, holding that non-supply of requested documents violates natural justice.

State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 was cited for the principle that an Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and not as a representative of the department.

Furthermore, the court referred to Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Sanjay Singh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke (2015) 3 SCC 123, establishing the requirement for a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence and emphasizing the need for source and authenticity.

The court also cited Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 10, stating that findings in disciplinary proceedings based on no evidence or wholly unreliable evidence are perverse and liable to be interfered with.

The limitations of judicial review in disciplinary matters, as outlined in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, were acknowledged but clarified by the High Court's earlier remand order, highlighting that courts must still scrutinize procedural adherence, natural justice, and the existence of "some legal evidence."

The Tribunal found that the respondents had not effectively refuted the applicant's grounds of appeal, particularly concerning violations of natural justice and procedural rules.

It noted the respondents’ failure to justify why the lady passenger could not be examined, suggesting an in-camera inquiry and cross-examination could have been arranged.

The Tribunal disagreed with the respondents' claim of following unspecified Supreme Court orders to protect the lady's dignity, stating such orders typically pertain to open court proceedings and identity protection, not precluding in-camera examination with dignity safeguards.

The applicant's contention regarding the IO's lack of independence was accepted, as the IO had sought directions from the DA during proceedings, undermining the IO's quasi-judicial role.

The Tribunal further found that the non-supply of sought documents without adequate reasons, and the denial of reasonable opportunity to the applicant, constituted a procedural irregularity.

Crucially, the Tribunal concluded that while a CD could be evidence, it could not be the sole basis of findings without proper proof and corroboration, especially given the lack of authentication under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

These procedural infirmities and the reliance on uncorroborated electronic evidence, coupled with the IO's apparent lack of independence, led the Tribunal to conclude that the inquiry proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities and a denial of reasonable opportunity for defence.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in accordance with the law.

Liberty was granted to the respondents to resume fresh disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in accordance with the rules and law governing the subject.

There was no order as to costs.