Patna HC Upholds Reinstatement Of Research Institute Employee Removed After Witness-Free Inquiry, Rejects Fresh Probe 12 Years Later

The respondent employee challenged his removal from service following a disciplinary inquiry.

The inquiry officer proceeded ex parte and found the charges proved without recording evidence from any listed witness or proving the relied-upon documents.

The disciplinary authority imposed removal on 3 October 2013, and the appellate authority upheld the penalty on 20 August 2018.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed the charge memo, inquiry report and disciplinary and appellate orders, and directed reinstatement and restoration of seniority; it left the question of salary for the suspension period to the employer’s administrative decision.

The Union of India and other authorities challenged the CAT’s order, arguing that the employee had failed to participate and that, in any event, a fresh inquiry should have been permitted.

A departmental inquiry is quasi-judicial: the inquiry officer must determine the charges on material properly brought on record, and an adverse finding must rest on evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 4 SCC 301, support the principle that charges cannot be treated as proved merely on the basis of unproved documents or other material not established through evidence; the requirement applies even where the inquiry proceeds ex parte.

In reviewing the CAT’s decision under its certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court considered whether the Tribunal’s view was reasonable and legally sustainable, rather than substituting its own view merely because another course was possible.

The inquiry officer’s decision to proceed ex parte did not dispense with the employer’s obligation to prove the charges. The record showed that no listed witness was examined and no relied-upon document was proved; indeed, the presenting officer had objected to proceeding without witness evidence.

Applying Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala, the High Court held that the CAT was right to set aside the resulting disciplinary and appellate decisions.

The Court also found no perversity in the CAT’s refusal to remit the matter for a fresh inquiry, since the charge memo had been issued more than 12 years earlier and a remand would serve no useful purpose.

The Tribunal’s decision was therefore a reasonable one warranting no interference in certiorari review.

Accordingly, the CAT’s orders quashing the charge memo, inquiry report and disciplinary and appellate orders, and directing reinstatement and restoration of seniority, remained undisturbed; the question of salary for the suspension period remained for the employer’s administrative decision.