Ex parte departmental inquiry and limited Article 226 review in disciplinary matters: documentary evidence can sustain findings.

Repeated opportunities to inspect relied-upon documents, file a defence and participate in the inquiry were sufficient to satisfy natural justice, and a delinquent employee who declines to cooperate cannot later complain that an ex parte departmental inquiry was vitiated. In such proceedings, documentary evidence kept in the ordinary course of business may support the charges, with proof assessed on the preponderance of probabilities. Judicial review under Article 226 remains limited to correcting legal or procedural error causing manifest injustice; it does not permit reappreciation of evidence in disciplinary matters where the service rules provide an alternative appeal and some evidence supports the findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated for want of supply of documents and witnesses and for being conducted ex parte; (ii) whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with the dismissal order despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated for want of supply of documents and witnesses and for being conducted ex parte.

Analysis: The Service Rules required the disciplinary authority to forward the charge-sheet materials, the written defence, the list of documents and witnesses, and permitted the Inquiring Authority to proceed ex parte if the officer failed to appear or cooperate. The record showed repeated opportunities to inspect documents, receive the list of relied upon materials, file a defence, and participate in the inquiry. The charged officer declined to avail those opportunities and ultimately walked out of the inquiry. In an ex parte departmental inquiry, documentary evidence maintained in the ordinary course of business can suffice, and the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The inquiry was not vitiated, and the findings were not liable to be set aside on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 with the dismissal order despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: Judicial review under Article 226 is confined to correcting legal or procedural error causing manifest injustice, and the High Court does not function as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence in disciplinary matters. The dismissal followed a full inquiry conducted in accordance with the Service Rules, and the charged officer had an alternative statutory appeal under the Service Rules. The record disclosed some evidence supporting the charges, and the High Court was not justified in treating the matter as one of no evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the dismissal order or quashed the disciplinary action.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order was restored in substance by allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: In a departmental inquiry, where a delinquent employee is given repeated opportunities but chooses not to participate, ex parte proceedings based on uncontroverted documentary evidence are valid, and the High Court cannot reappreciate such evidence under Article 226 as if exercising appellate jurisdiction.

---