Disciplinary inquiry and delay in proceedings: disputed non-cooperation and Regulation 68 required fresh adjudication, not closure on time alone.

An oral disciplinary inquiry could not be treated as mandatory without first determining whether the employee had in fact failed to cooperate and without examining the effect of Regulation 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. If non-cooperation was established, the absence of a recorded oral inquiry would not by itself invalidate the dismissal, so the writ petition required fresh adjudication on the disputed facts. Long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings also did not justify closing the matter merely on delay, especially where the employee was not wholly responsible for the lapse of time and the charges were serious. The dismissal order and High Court judgment were set aside and the matter remitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be allowed on the footing that an oral disciplinary inquiry was obligatory even though the delinquent employee allegedly did not cooperate; (ii) whether the long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings justified closing the matter.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be allowed on the footing that an oral disciplinary inquiry was obligatory even though the delinquent employee allegedly did not cooperate.

Analysis: The charges were serious and the matter turned on disputed facts. The authority's case was that repeated opportunities had been given, but the employee did not respond, file an explanation, or participate in the inquiry. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that a regular oral inquiry was mandatory without first determining whether the allegation of non-cooperation was correct and without properly examining the effect of Regulation 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. If the employee's non-cooperation was established, the absence of a recorded oral inquiry could not by itself invalidate the dismissal.

Conclusion: The writ petition could not be finally allowed on that basis, and the matter required fresh adjudication on the disputed facts and the effect of Regulation 68.

Issue (ii): Whether the long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings justified closing the matter.

Analysis: Although the proceedings were very old, the delay could not by itself justify termination of the case, particularly when the appellant could not be held wholly responsible for the lapse of time. The seriousness of the charges also weighed against disposing of the dispute merely on the ground of passage of time.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not to be closed merely because of delay.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order and the High Court's judgment were set aside, and the writ petition was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in light of the observations made.

---