Non-supply of enquiry report to delinquent employee before imposition of punishment vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding.

The petitioner, an employee of the respondent company, was posted at the Electricity Distributing Centre, Khetia, between 2008 and 2011.

Based on certain deficiencies, he was suspended and subsequently served a charge-sheet on 31.03.2011.

Following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 13.02.2013 withholding 10% of the petitioner’s pension for two years.

The petitioner appealed this decision.

The Appellate Authority, by order dated 17.01.2014, upheld the finding of guilt but reduced the punishment to withholding 5% of the pension for two years.

The petitioner challenged these orders via a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the Inquiry Officer’s report was never supplied to him, thereby denying him an opportunity to respond to the findings.

1. Whether the non-supply of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee before the imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority vitiates the departmental proceedings.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits and whether the respondents should be granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings given the petitioner’s advanced age.

The court applied the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (Audi Alteram Partem).

It held that the non-supply of an inquiry report before the imposition of punishment constitutes a fundamental procedural lapse that violates natural justice.

This principle requires that if a Disciplinary Authority relies on the findings of an Inquiry Officer, the delinquent must be given a copy of that report to submit a representation against those findings before a final decision is reached.

The court observed that the Disciplinary Authority’s punishment order was explicitly based on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

Upon perusal of the record, the court found no evidence that the inquiry report was ever supplied to the petitioner or that he was granted an opportunity to respond to the Inquiry Officer’s conclusions.

The court reasoned that since the findings of the inquiry formed the basis of the penalty, the failure to provide the report denied the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to defend himself.

Consequently, the court determined that the entire procedure was vitiated by this procedural illegality, rendering both the initial punishment order and the subsequent appellate order legally unsustainable.

The Court directed the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months, failing which interest would accrue.

Notably, the court refused to grant the respondents liberty to proceed further with the inquiry, citing the petitioner’s advanced age of approximately 73–74 years and the time elapsed since his retirement.