Natural justice in disciplinary action requires proof of prejudice before non-supply of the enquiry report can upset punishment.

Non-supply of the enquiry report does not automatically invalidate disciplinary punishment; the employee must show real prejudice or failure of justice caused by the omission. The authority may also rely on past conduct while fixing punishment, especially where the proved misconduct is grave or reflects repeated indiscipline, and an indisputable service record may reinforce the penalty. On the facts, repeated absenteeism and no demonstrated prejudice justified the removal order, and interference by the High Court was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-supply of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee vitiated the disciplinary proceedings without proof of prejudice; (ii) Whether the disciplinary authority could take into account the employee's past conduct while determining punishment.

Issue (i): Whether non-supply of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee vitiated the disciplinary proceedings without proof of prejudice.

Analysis: The right to receive the enquiry report and to respond to it forms part of fair procedure, but a breach of natural justice does not automatically nullify the punishment. The governing principle is that the delinquent employee must establish real prejudice or a failure of justice caused by the omission. Where no different consequence would have followed even if the report had been furnished, interference with the punishment is not warranted.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the enquiry report did not by itself vitiate the punishment in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary authority could take into account the employee's past conduct while determining punishment.

Analysis: Past conduct may be considered for the purpose of punishment, particularly where the misconduct is grave or shows repeated indiscipline, and it is desirable that the employee be informed of that possibility. The authority is not barred from relying on an indisputable service record to reinforce the penalty, and in a disciplined force repeated absenteeism constitutes serious misconduct. In the present facts, the employee had repeatedly deserted duty, offered no explanation, and failed to show any prejudice from consideration of his antecedents.

Conclusion: The disciplinary authority was entitled to consider the employee's past conduct while imposing punishment.

Final Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the removal order, and the disciplinary punishment was restored on the basis of repeated absenteeism and absence of proven prejudice.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary order is not vitiated merely because the enquiry report was not supplied or past misconduct was considered, unless the employee shows real prejudice and the overall decision is unsupported by the gravity of the proved misconduct.

---