Non-service of inquiry report constitutes denial of natural justice where prejudice is caused by evidence lapses.

The respondent, a Sub-Inspector in the Jharkhand Police, was posted as In-charge of Muffasil Police Station in 2010. Following the seizure of seven trucks in a mining case, a complainant alleged that the Investigating Officer (IO) demanded a bribe with the respondent's consent to submit a release report to the court

Based on an inquiry report by the DSP, departmental proceedings were initiated. The respondent did not participate in the inquiry

The inquiry officer found the charges proved based on documents and the confession of a co-delinquent, without examining any witnesses

The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of withholding one annual increment (equivalent to two black marks) on 31.08.2011

Appeals and revisions were dismissed

The respondent challenged these orders via W.P.(S) No. 6549 of 2012. The learned Single Judge quashed the punishment orders on 16.05.2024 because a second show-cause notice and the inquiry report were not served

1. Whether the non-service of the second show-cause notice and the inquiry report vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, given the respondent's non-participation in the inquiry

2. Whether the findings of the inquiry officer, based solely on documents without examining witnesses (including the complainant), were legally sustainable

The court primarily relied on the principle of natural justice as articulated in Managing Director, ECIL Others v. B. Karunakar Others, which mandates the supply of the inquiry report to a delinquent employee to prevent a denial of justice, provided prejudice is shown

It further applied the standard for quasi-judicial proceedings established in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, holding that charges in a departmental proceeding must be proved by evidence and that materials collected during a criminal investigation cannot automatically be treated as evidence in disciplinary proceedings

The court rejected the appellants' contention that the respondent's failure to participate in the inquiry waived his right to a second show-cause notice.

The court observed that the inquiry officer committed a "grave prejudice" by not examining a single witness, including the complainant, making the findings based solely on documents procedurally flawed

Citing B. Karunakar, the court determined that the denial of the inquiry report prevented the respondent from pointing out these evidentiary lapses to the disciplinary authority

The court emphasized that the inquiry officer, performing a quasi-judicial function, had an independent duty to arrive at a finding based on recorded materials rather than relying on external confessions or unproven documents

Since the respondent had already retired in 2022, the court found it inappropriate to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order quashing the punishment and directed the extension of consequential benefits to the respondent. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit