Non-supply of inquiry report violates natural justice, justifying writ interference despite availability of alternative remedies.

The petitioner, an Assistant Settlement Officer (ASO), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on charges of gross misconduct.

It was alleged that he illegally allowed land mutations of "Enemy Property" based on forged sale deeds without proper verification.

Following a previous writ petition [WP(C) No. 716/2024], the High Court directed the appointment of an independent Inquiring Authority.

Subsequently, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) conducted the inquiry.

On April 7, 2025, the Disciplinary Authority (DM Collector) passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service.

The petitioner challenged this order primarily on the grounds that the inquiry report was never furnished to him prior to the imposition of the penalty, and that his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank sheets during the personal hearing.

The petitioner approached the High Court directly under Article 226 without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy of a departmental appeal.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice enshrined under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

It relied on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, which establishes that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where there is a violation of natural justice.

Further, it applied the doctrine from Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar.

the recent decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh [para. 39], which mandate that the supply of an inquiry report is a fundamental safeguard and its non-supply renders the proceedings invalid, as prejudice is self-evident in such cases.

The court first addressed the objection regarding maintainability. It held that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary and "for any other purpose," concluding that since the petitioner alleged a gross violation of natural justice, the availability of an appellate forum did not oust the High Court's jurisdiction.

On the merits, the court noted that the respondents failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner before the dismissal order was passed.

The court observed that Respondent No. 5 (the DM) did not file a personal counter-affidavit to refute allegations of bias and procedural irregularities.

Following the precedent in Ram Prakash Singh, the court reasoned that the right to receive the inquiry report is an integral part of a fair opportunity to defend oneself; by bypassing this step, the Disciplinary Authority's action became procedurally lopsided and legally unsustainable.

The court held that the non-furnishing of the inquiry report was a fatal procedural lapse that violated the principles of natural justice.

The matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner.

The petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to submit his defense against the report, after which the Disciplinary Authority is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law within four months.