Natural justice and bias in disciplinary enquiries can invalidate removal where defence access and fair procedure are denied

Denial of access to material documents, restriction of effective cross-examination and defence, and irregular conduct of a disciplinary enquiry can breach natural justice and the governing rules. The text also notes that secret enquiries, private interactions with outside agencies, and hasty refusal to remit the matter may indicate a real likelihood of bias or actual bias in the enquiry process. It further states that removal may be unsustainable where the punishment is based on a tainted enquiry and is harsh or disproportionate when compared with treatment in a similar case.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated for denial of reasonable opportunity and breach of natural justice by non-supply of relevant documents, refusal to permit effective defence, and irregular conduct of the proceedings; (ii) Whether the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority acted with bias or a closed mind, including at the stage of framing the charge and imposing punishment; (iii) Whether the order of removal was unsustainable for want of proper exercise of discretion and for being harsh and disproportionate.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated for denial of reasonable opportunity and breach of natural justice by non-supply of relevant documents, refusal to permit effective defence, and irregular conduct of the proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioner was denied access to material that went to the root of his defence, including the preliminary C.B.I. statements and report, the record of the similarly placed employee's enquiry, and relevant materials concerning I.J.I.R.A. and Maharaja Travels. Those documents were directly relevant to testing the prosecution case, cross-examining witnesses, and presenting the defence. The Inquiry Officer also required disclosure of defence witnesses before the prosecution case was closed, curtailed the defence in a manner contrary to the applicable rules, and did not conduct the enquiry in a fair and open manner. The cumulative effect was that the petitioner was not afforded a real and reasonable opportunity of defence.

Conclusion: The enquiry was vitiated by breach of natural justice and violation of the governing disciplinary rules, and the finding was against the respondents.

Issue (ii): Whether the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority acted with bias or a closed mind, including at the stage of framing the charge and imposing punishment.

Analysis: The mere wording of the charge sheet was not, by itself, sufficient to establish a closed mind. However, the manner in which the enquiry was conducted showed that the Inquiry Officer made secret enquiries behind the petitioner's back, exchanged correspondence and had private interactions with outside agencies, and did not act with independent judgment. The disciplinary authority also declined to remit the matter for further enquiry on extraneous considerations and acted hastily after being given liberty by the earlier order. On the facts, the enquiry and the final decision reflected a real likelihood of bias, and in the case of the Inquiry Officer the materials disclosed actual bias in the conduct of the proceeding.

Conclusion: Bias was established against the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority's refusal to remit the matter was not a proper exercise of discretion, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the order of removal was unsustainable for want of proper exercise of discretion and for being harsh and disproportionate.

Analysis: The petitioner's case stood on the same footing as the other employee who was dealt with far more leniently on substantially similar facts. The disciplinary authority's reasons for not remitting the matter were extraneous, and the final order was passed in undue haste without proper reconsideration after the earlier judicial liberty. The punishment of removal was not justified on the material placed and was out of proportion to the treatment meted out in the comparable case.

Conclusion: The order of removal was unsustainable and was held to be harsh and disproportionate, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the writ petitioner's challenge succeeded, and the disciplinary order of removal could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory disciplinary enquiry, denial of access to material evidence, departure from mandatory procedure, and conduct showing real likelihood of bias or an unfair closed mind vitiate the proceeding, and punishment founded on such a tainted enquiry cannot be sustained.

---