Natural justice in disciplinary enquiries can justify judicial review where guilt is based on no evidence or inadmissible material.

A domestic disciplinary finding is vulnerable to judicial review where it rests on no evidence, inadmissible material, or a procedure that denies a reasonable opportunity of defence. The Court stated that it does not sit as an appellate authority in service matters, but may interfere when findings are perverse or unsupported by material a prudent person could accept. It further noted that prior statements under Rule 16(3) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980 can be used only when the witness cannot be produced without undue delay, inconvenience, or expense, and fair-hearing safeguards are observed. On the material accepted in law, the charge was unsustainable and reinstatement with consequential benefits followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary findings dismissing the appellant from service were vitiated for breach of natural justice and for want of evidence, warranting interference in judicial review.

Analysis: In disciplinary proceedings, the Court will not act as an appellate authority, but may interfere where findings are unsupported by evidence, are perverse, or could not have been reached by a prudent person. Rule 16(3) of the Delhi Police (F&A) Rules, 1980 permits reliance on prior statements only when the presence of a witness cannot be procured without undue delay, inconvenience or expense, and the procedural safeguards contemplated by fair hearing are observed. Here, the alleged complainants were not produced, the conditions for invoking Rule 16(3) were not shown to exist, and the previous statements were brought on record without a legally sustainable basis. The departmental witness who was said to have paid money to the appellant denied making any such payment, while the defence evidence supported the appellant. The conclusion that one defence witness was an impostor was recorded without adequate basis. On the material accepted in law, there was no evidence to sustain the charge.

Conclusion: The disciplinary finding was perverse and unsupported by evidence; interference was justified and the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: A domestic enquiry is vulnerable to judicial review where the finding of guilt is founded on no evidence, on inadmissible material, or on a procedure that denies the delinquent a reasonable opportunity of defence under the principles of natural justice.

---