Non-production of listed witnesses for cross-examination violates natural justice and vitiates departmental inquiry proceedings.

The applicant, a Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) at CHC Rangat, was served a major penalty charge sheet on July 6, 2020.

The charges included posting inflammatory social media messages during COVID-19, using political influence, and insulting Zilla Parishad members during a meeting.

Following a period of suspension that was later revoked, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer (I.O.) and a Presenting Officer (P.O.).

During the inquiry, four out of six listed prosecution witnesses—private individuals who had made the original complaints—failed to appear despite three notices.

The I.O. dispensed with their presence, relied on their preliminary inquiry statements, and concluded that the charges were proved.

Additionally, several documents requested by the applicant for his defense were denied on the grounds of "non-availability".

The applicant challenged the charge sheet, the appointment of the P.O., and the Inquiry Report before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the appointment of a Presenting Officer junior in rank to the Charged Official (C.O.) and the appointment of the I.O. violated statutory rules?

2. Whether the inquiry report is vitiated by the non-production of vital witnesses and the subsequent denial of the applicant's right to cross-examination?

3. Whether the non-supply of additional defense documents without recording reasons for their relevance violated Rule 14(12) of the CCS (CCA) Rules?

The Tribunal relied on the scope of judicial review established in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995), which permits interference if proceedings violate natural justice or statutory rules.

This was bolstered by State of Karnataka v. Umesh (2022), emphasizing that findings must not be based on "no evidence".

Regarding the right to cross-examination, the Tribunal cited Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Prakash Kumar Tandon v. Union of India, which establish that a charged officer is entitled to cross-examine vital witnesses whose statements are relied upon.

Procedurally, the Tribunal applied Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, specifically the proviso to Rule 14(12) regarding the production of additional documents.

The Tribunal first addressed the appointments, noting that CCS (CCA) Rules do not require a P.O. to be senior to the C.O., and since the I.O. was senior to the applicant, no legal infirmity existed in their appointments.

However, the Tribunal found the inquiry process fundamentally flawed. It held that the I.O. could not rely on preliminary inquiry statements of witnesses who failed to appear for the formal inquiry, as this deprived the applicant of his right to cross-examine his accusers, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal further observed that the I.O. failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Rule 14(12) of the CCS (CCA) Rules; the I.O. did not record any deliberation on the relevance of the additional documents requested by the applicant, dismissively citing "non-availability" instead.

Consequently, the report was deemed to be in violation of statutory procedures and natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the Charge Memorandum dated July 6, 2020, finding it was issued by a competent authority and was not vague.

The Respondents were directed to resume the disciplinary matter from the stage of the appointment of the P.O. and I.O., effectively requiring a de novo inquiry that complies with the right to cross-examination and document discovery.

No costs were awarded.