Repeated nonparticipation despite adequate opportunity defeats a natural-justice challenge to an ex parte inquiry.

Brijesh Kumar, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, was proceeded against on charges including misbehaviour with departmental officials, failure to hand over charge, retention of government money, and delaying receipt of a registered letter.

After an initial ex parte inquiry and dismissal in 2017, the appellate authority remitted the matter for a de novo inquiry from the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer.

Kumar did not participate in the fresh inquiry, which was concluded ex parte; he was compulsorily discharged with monetary benefits by order dated 29 September 2021.

His appeal was rejected on 30 August 2022.

He challenged those orders, alleging denial of an effective opportunity to defend himself and failure to consider his explanations and complaints against departmental officials.

Whether the de novo disciplinary inquiry, conducted ex parte after the applicant did not attend despite repeated opportunities, violated the principles of natural justice

Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the disciplinary and appellate orders on grounds of procedural irregularity, evidentiary insufficiency, or disproportionate punishment

The Tribunal considered the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, including Rule 21, under which the charges alleged breaches of conduct obligations.

It applied the principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters concerns the legality and fairness of the process, not reappreciation of evidence; interference is warranted for jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity.

Relying on S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, 2013 (7) SCALE 417, it further stated that a court should not substitute its findings for those of the disciplinary authority and may interfere with punishment only in exceptional cases, such as where it shocks the conscience; reasons must be given for finding punishment disproportionate.

The Tribunal found that, following the remand for a de novo inquiry, the applicant was given repeated opportunities to participate, including notices for 14 inquiry dates between February 2019 and April 2021, but did not attend or submit a defence.

It held that the ex parte character of the inquiry did not, by itself, establish a breach of natural justice where the applicant had knowledge of the proceedings and reasonable opportunities to be heard.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Tribunal declined to reassess the evidence and found no demonstrated procedural or legal infirmity warranting intervention.

It dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit, discharged any interim order, and disposed of the related miscellaneous applications.