Non-appointment of a Defence Assistant does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice.

A show-cause notice dated 10 July 2024 was issued to the petitioner, an Assistant Battalion Sub-Inspector in the 27th Assam Police Battalion, alleging that he had used the names of several police personnel to issue fake railway warrants and had affixed a fake Reserve Inspector seal while signing as Reserve Inspector.

The alleged conduct was treated as gross indiscipline, moral turpitude and misconduct under the Assam Police Manual.

A departmental enquiry was thereafter instituted, with an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer appointed on 22 August 2024.

After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, who was asked to submit his representation within ten days.

The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect by order dated 29 January 2025. The petitioner’s departmental appeal was dismissed on 10 April 2025.

Before the High Court, the petitioner alleged non-supply of relied-upon documents, denial of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, failure to furnish witness depositions along with the enquiry report, and denial of a Defence Assistant.

The respondents contended that the documents had been supplied, the petitioner had declined to cross-examine the witnesses, and had admitted the misconduct in his statement dated 11 January 2025.

Whether the departmental proceedings were vitiated by violation of natural justice because the petitioner was allegedly not supplied with the relevant documents and witness evidence.

Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses.

Whether non-appointment of a Defence Assistant invalidated the departmental proceedings.

Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders imposing and affirming the penalty were liable to be set aside.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice governing departmental enquiries, including the delinquent employee’s right to receive the relied-upon materials, to inspect and meet the evidence against him, and to receive the enquiry report before imposition of penalty.

The Court also considered Article 311 of the Constitution insofar as it protects procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings against civil servants.

It relied on the principle that non-supply of an enquiry report may vitiate disciplinary action, as discussed in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. K.K. Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 494, but distinguished that precedent where the enquiry report has in fact been supplied.

The Court also considered Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, concerning effective opportunity to respond to the material relied upon in disciplinary proceedings, but held it inapplicable on the facts because the petitioner had been supplied with the relevant documents.

Non-appointment of a Defence Assistant does not, by itself, vitiate proceedings where the delinquent employee did not request one and fails to establish prejudice.

The Court found from the departmental records that the petitioner had admitted the alleged acts in his statement dated 11 January 2025, and that the disciplinary order recorded such admission.

The allegation that cross-examination had been denied was rejected because the records showed that the petitioner had been afforded the opportunity but had expressly declined to cross-examine the witnesses.

The show-cause notice itself contained the list of five prosecution witnesses and five documents, and the respondents specifically asserted that these materials had been furnished to the petitioner.

Since the enquiry report was supplied and the petitioner submitted a reply to it, the rule in Punjab National Bank was not attracted.

The Court similarly distinguished S.K. Kapoor because the petitioner had access to the documents relied upon by the department.

Although the petitioner was not provided a Defence Assistant, he had not requested one and, in view of his admission and failure to demonstrate any prejudice, the omission did not invalidate the proceedings.

The records demonstrated that he had received the relevant materials, had been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses but declined it, had received the enquiry report, and had admitted the misconduct.

The absence of a Defence Assistant caused no demonstrated prejudice.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the disciplinary order dated 29 January 2025 and appellate order dated 10 April 2025 were left undisturbed.

No order as to costs was made.