Mandatory disciplinary procedure and fair hearing requirements vitiated the punishment; the court quashed it without remand.

Failure to comply with the mandatory enquiry procedure for a major penalty and denial of a fair opportunity to defend vitiated the re-inquiry and the punishment order. No hearing date was fixed, no proper chance to lead defence evidence was shown, and the record did not support the claim that the employee was duly heard, so the disciplinary action could not stand. Considering the long lapse of time, the employee's retirement, the earlier exoneration, and the need for complex evidence, the Court found a fresh remand unnecessary and quashed the punishment finally, with consequential service benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the re-inquiry and the consequent punishment order were vitiated for non-compliance with Rule 7 read with Rule 9(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and violation of natural justice. (ii) Whether, in the facts of the case, the matter should be remitted for fresh enquiry or the punishment order should be quashed finally.

Issue (i): Whether the re-inquiry and the consequent punishment order were vitiated for non-compliance with Rule 7 read with Rule 9(1) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner had denied the charges and specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing if the written explanation was not found satisfactory. After remand for re-inquiry, no date was fixed for hearing, no proper opportunity was shown to have been given for leading defence evidence, and no material was produced to show that the enquiry proceeded in accordance with the mandatory procedure for a major penalty. The record also did not support the stand that the petitioner had been duly heard in the manner suggested by the respondents. The subsequent enquiry, therefore, stood vitiated by breach of the prescribed procedure and denial of a fair opportunity.

Conclusion: The re-inquiry and the punishment order were invalid and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, the matter should be remitted for fresh enquiry or the punishment order should be quashed finally.

Analysis: The Court weighed the age of the proceedings, the petitioner's retirement, the earlier exoneration in the first enquiry, and the need for complex evidence on disputed issues. In these circumstances, a further remand would serve no useful purpose and would not be to direct completion of the enquiry afresh.

Conclusion: The matter was not remitted and the punishment order was quashed finally.

Final Conclusion: The impugned disciplinary action was set aside, and the petitioner was held entitled to the resulting service benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a major penalty proceeding, failure to follow the mandatory enquiry procedure and to afford a real opportunity to defend, especially after a directed re-inquiry, vitiates the punishment order; remand is unnecessary where the circumstances make further enquiry impracticable and unjust.

---