Non-supply of the inquiry report before punishment violates natural justice and invalidates the disciplinary order.

The petitioner was appointed as a Samvida Shaala Shikshak Grade-I on 12 October 2006 and was subsequently merged as a Teacher in the Tribal Welfare Department on 23 August 2018.

He was suspended on 8 November 2023 on allegations of tampering with a medical certificate dated 18 October 2023 and failure to perform election duty.

A charge-sheet was issued on 20 December 2023, which the petitioner denied.

After the departmental enquiry and submission of the prosecution brief, the petitioner filed his defence brief with supporting documents. However, the enquiry report was not supplied to him despite repeated requests.

The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the impugned order dated 18 March 2025, imposing the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and directing that he would receive no amount beyond the subsistence allowance paid during suspension.

The petitioner challenged the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, principally on the grounds that the punishment was imposed by an allegedly incompetent authority and that the non-supply of the enquiry report violated natural justice.

Whether the disciplinary order dated 18 March 2025 was vitiated by failure to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner before imposing punishment, thereby denying him an effective opportunity to make a representation?

Whether the punishment was imposed by an authority lacking competence under the applicable service rules, particularly when withholding an increment with cumulative effect was alleged to constitute a major penalty?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the legality of the disciplinary action.

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that an enquiry report be furnished to the delinquent employee before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision, so that the employee may submit an effective representation against the findings.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588, which recognises non-supply of the enquiry report as a violation of the reasonable opportunity contemplated in disciplinary proceedings.

The Court also considered the requirement that disciplinary punishment be imposed by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable service rules, although its decision ultimately rested on the breach of natural justice.

The Court found that the petitioner had not been furnished with the enquiry report before the punishment order was passed.

Consequently, he was deprived of an opportunity to examine the findings, respond to them, and effectively defend himself before the disciplinary authority.

This omission constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice and rendered the punishment order unsustainable.

Although the petitioner also challenged the competence of respondent No. 4 and relied on the alleged major-penalty character of withholding an increment with cumulative effect, the Court disposed of the petition on the independent and sufficient ground that the enquiry report had not been supplied.

The matter was remitted to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner, provide him an opportunity to submit his representation, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.