Disciplinary enquiry irregularity and perverse finding tests upheld where no prejudice, cross-examination was allowed, and delay barred challenge.

A disciplinary enquiry was not invalidated by the sequence in which the enquiry officer and charges were dealt with, because the authority remained competent to have charges prepared and no prejudice to the delinquent was shown. Appointment of a second enquiry officer for the limited purpose of enabling cross-examination also did not vitiate the proceedings, as the witness was examined, cross-examined, and no material displaced the earlier findings. The assessed findings were not perverse merely because the witness gave differing versions, and the penalty was sustained. A delayed writ challenge was also found unsustainable where communication of the penalty had occurred much earlier.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the enquiry officer was appointed before the charges were framed and was directed to frame the charges; (ii) whether the appointment of a second enquiry officer to enable cross-examination of a witness was illegal; (iii) whether the findings recorded in the enquiry and the penalty order were perverse; and (iv) whether the penalty and the delayed challenge to it could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the enquiry officer was appointed before the charges were framed and was directed to frame the charges.

Analysis: The procedural sequence under Rule 20 contemplates framing of charges before the enquiry proceeds, but the disciplinary authority is empowered to draw up or cause the charges to be drawn up. The irregularity lay only in the order of steps taken. No prejudice to the delinquent was shown, and the authority remained competent to have the charges prepared by another officer.

Conclusion: The first objection was rejected and the enquiry was not held invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment of a second enquiry officer to enable cross-examination of a witness was illegal.

Analysis: The first enquiry report was not treated as complete for want of an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witness. The second enquiry officer was appointed only for that limited purpose. The delinquent accepted that course, secured the witness's attendance, and cross-examined him. No material emerged to displace the earlier findings.

Conclusion: The appointment of the second enquiry officer did not vitiate the proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the findings recorded in the enquiry and the penalty order were perverse.

Analysis: The witness had given differing versions, but those discrepancies were noticed and evaluated by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. A finding based on assessed evidence and circumstances does not become perverse merely because the witness's statements varied, especially when the inconsistency itself was considered in the decision-making process.

Conclusion: The findings were not shown to be perverse.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalty and the delayed challenge to it could be sustained.

Analysis: The disciplinary authority considered that the delinquent had not obtained immediate benefit from the false entry but could gain future advantage, and still imposed a major penalty on that basis. The Tribunal also found that the order had been communicated long before the writ challenge, rendering the challenge time-barred.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the delayed challenge was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the Tribunal's dismissal of the challenge to the penalty order was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere deviation in the sequence of disciplinary steps does not invalidate the enquiry in the absence of prejudice, and findings based on assessed circumstantial evidence will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse.

---