P&H HC Upholds Setting Aside HAFED Manager’s Dismissal, Allows Fresh Inquiry After His Charge-Sheet Reply Was Overlooked

Rajesh Kumar, a District Manager with HAFED, was charged with failing to act against defaulting rice mills and with allotting paddy beyond mill capacity, allegedly causing HAFED a loss of approximately ₹16 crore.

HAFED initiated disciplinary proceedings under the HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988. The Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte after Kumar did not appear, found the charges proved, and HAFED dismissed him from service.

On revision, the Additional Registrar set aside the inquiry report and dismissal order, finding that requested documents had not been supplied and Kumar’s written reply had not been properly considered; HAFED was permitted to initiate a fresh inquiry.

HAFED challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that Kumar had submitted a reply on 7 July 2020, before the inquiry concluded.

Under the HAFED Common Cadre Rules, 1988, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated under Rule 19, a proposed penalty may be considered under Rule 19.2(g), and revision may be sought under Rule 21.

An Inquiry Officer may proceed ex parte where a delinquent employee fails to appear despite due notice; however, the department must still follow a fair procedure and prove the charges through evidence.

A charge-sheet is not proof of the allegations, and serious misconduct must be established by evidence demonstrating the employee’s attributable conduct.

The judgment cites no judicial precedents.

The Court held that Kumar’s failure to attend the inquiry did not, by itself, invalidate the ex parte proceedings.

However, the Inquiry Officer’s report proceeded on the incorrect premise that Kumar had not replied to the charge-sheet, despite his reply having been submitted before the inquiry concluded.

Further, the evidence—principally one witness affirming the charge-sheet and another adopting that evidence—did not satisfactorily demonstrate how Kumar’s conduct established the alleged connivance or the claimed financial loss.

The charge-sheet itself could not substitute for proof, and the department had not responded to Kumar’s earlier requests for relevant documents.

The revisional authority’s decision to set aside the proceedings and permit a fresh inquiry therefore disclosed no infirmity requiring the High Court’s intervention.

HAFED remains at liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings under the applicable Rules, provided Kumar is supplied the relevant documents and given a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence and participate in the inquiry.

The Court expressed no view on the underlying allegations.