J&K HC Reinstates Two Municipal Workers Accused Of Misappropriation With 50% Back Wages After Inquiry Denied Them Cross-Examination

Krishan Lal, an employee of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation temporarily working with the Jammu Municipal Corporation, and Jawahar Lal Koul, an employee of the Jammu Municipal Corporation, were charged with misappropriating municipal revenue.

Following an inquiry, both were terminated by orders dated 8 February 2008.

They challenged the terminations, alleging, among other things, that the inquiry was conducted without a proper opportunity to defend themselves.

The respondents asserted that the petitioners had been given opportunities to participate but had not appeared.

Despite the Court’s directions, the respondents could not produce the inquiry record, stating that it was untraceable.

Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 requires that, before dismissal or removal, the employee be informed of the charges and afforded an adequate opportunity to defend against them.

Where an oral inquiry is held, the employee is entitled to cross-examine departmental witnesses, give evidence, and produce defence witnesses; the inquiry record must sufficiently set out the evidence, findings, and grounds.

Under the J&K Municipal Corporation Act, a Corporation is a distinct body corporate, and the Corporation’s authority over its officers and servants—including disciplinary matters—rests with the relevant Corporation and its competent authorities; the Court considered Sections 2(8), 3, 4, 45, 50 and 67.

Krishan Lal’s service book showed that he remained employed by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation and had not been absorbed into the Jammu Municipal Corporation.

Government Order No. 304-GR of 1990 permitted migrant employees to perform additional work in Jammu but did not transfer their disciplinary control; accordingly, the Jammu Commissioner lacked authority to terminate him.

As to both petitioners, the Court found no adequate proof that they had been notified of the dates and venue of the inquiry.

The material relied upon did not establish that Jawahar Lal Koul had received the relevant notice, and the inquiry report did not identify witnesses, record when they were examined, or refer to their statements.

Given the absent inquiry record and the petitioners’ asserted inability to cross-examine witnesses or present a defence, the Court concluded that Rule 33 had not been followed.

Although a fresh inquiry would ordinarily have been considered, both petitioners had crossed the age of superannuation, and the Court held that a fresh inquiry was no longer open once the employer–employee relationship had ended.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with 50% of back wages and to process their retiral benefits, including pension, within three months of receiving the order.