Mandatory Adherence to Rule 9: Non-Service of Enquiry Notice and Failure to Furnish Enquiry Report Vitiates Dismissal.

The petitioner, a Land Record Assistant, was arrested on 14.06.2023 following an FIR alleging a bribe demand under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

He was placed under suspension and subsequently served with a disciplinary show-cause notice on 16.10.2023

An Enquiry Officer was appointed; however, the petitioner was never issued a specific notice to appear for the hearing, which was conducted in his absence by recording statements of departmental witnesses

A copy of the resulting enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner for comment

Based on this report, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner on 10.01.2024, later modifying the order on 05.07.2024 to correct a typographical error regarding the statutory rule invoked

The Appellate Authority affirmed the dismissal on 25.08.2024

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964

2. Whether the non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee vitiated the order of penalty

3. Whether the Disciplinary Authority had the jurisdiction to modify the penalty order during the pendency of an appeal to correct a typographical error

Rule 9(6) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, which mandates that a government servant is entitled to cross-examine witnesses and adduce evidence in their defense

The landmark precedent of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1994), which established that the non-furnishing of an enquiry report to a delinquent employee is a violation of natural justice that vitiates the proceedings

A mere wrong quoting of a legal provision does not per se invalidate an order if the power otherwise exists

The court found that the Enquiry Officer acted in a "most casual manner" by issuing notices only to witnesses while failing to serve a notice of appearance on the petitioner

This procedural lapse deprived the petitioner of his statutory right under Rule 9(6) to cross-examine witnesses and defend himself, thereby vitiating the enquiry

The court observed that the respondents failed to deny the petitioner's specific allegation that the enquiry report was never served upon him

Applying the ECIL doctrine, the court reasoned that the failure to provide the report prevented the petitioner from making a meaningful representation against the findings, rendering the dismissal order unsustainable

Regarding the correction of the rule number from Rule 7(20) to Rule 7(vii), the court held that while the modification was legally permissible to correct a clerical error, it could not cure the foundational illegality of the vitiated enquiry

The petitioner is directed to be reinstated but is deemed to remain under suspension from the date of his original dismissal; respondents are granted liberty to proceed with the disciplinary action afresh from the stage of the show-cause reply, ensuring strict compliance with Rule 9 and Rule 9(A) of the 1964 Rules, release of arrear subsistence allowance within two months and conclusion of the enquiry within six months