Disciplinary action fails where the charge-sheet is unauthorized, the findings rest on suspicion, and natural justice is denied.

A disciplinary charge-sheet is invalid if issued by an officer who lacked power to initiate proceedings at the time of issuance, and a later notification cannot cure that defect. Disciplinary findings must rest on evidence, not mere suspicion; a charge built only on suspicion cannot sustain punishment. Domestic enquiries must follow natural justice by giving notice of material witness testimony and an opportunity for cross-examination. Where the disciplinary authority proposes to differ from the enquiry report or impose a higher penalty, it must record reasons and give a meaningful opportunity to respond to both the findings and the proposed punishment. On these principles, the disciplinary action was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge-sheet was invalid for having been issued by an officer not empowered to do so on the date of issue; (ii) whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the charges rested on suspicion rather than evidence; (iii) whether the enquiry was vitiated by examination of a witness without notice to, and opportunity of cross-examination by, the delinquent; (iv) whether the second show cause notice and proposed higher punishment were invalid for want of reasons and for denial of a fair opportunity against the enquiry findings.

Issue (i): Whether the charge-sheet was invalid for having been issued by an officer not empowered to do so on the date of issue;

Analysis: The authority issuing the charge-sheet must possess the legal power to initiate disciplinary action at the time of issuance. A subsequent notification could not validate an act done when the officer lacked authority, particularly where the proceeding affected civil consequences of the employee.

Conclusion: The charge-sheet was invalid and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the charges rested on suspicion rather than evidence;

Analysis: Disciplinary guilt must rest on evidentiary material pointing with definiteness to the delinquent's misconduct. Mere suspicion cannot replace proof, and a charge founded only on suspicion cannot sustain punishment. The money collected from employees' salaries for deposit in their accounts did not acquire the character of Government money.

Conclusion: The charges based on suspicion could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the enquiry was vitiated by examination of a witness without notice to, and opportunity of cross-examination by, the delinquent;

Analysis: Fair procedure in a domestic enquiry requires that material evidence be put to the delinquent with an opportunity to meet it, including cross-examination where the witness is relied upon. Examination of a witness behind the back of the delinquent, without notice or opportunity to cross-examine, offended natural justice and impaired the enquiry.

Conclusion: The enquiry was vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Issue (iv): Whether the second show cause notice and proposed higher punishment were invalid for want of reasons and for denial of a fair opportunity against the enquiry findings.

Analysis: When the disciplinary authority proposes to differ from or aggravate the punishment flowing from the enquiry report, the affected employee must be given a meaningful opportunity to meet both the findings and the proposed penalty. The authority also had to record reasons for seeking a higher punishment, which was not done. The second notice reflected a prejudged mind and did not afford a fair opportunity to contest the enquiry report.

Conclusion: The second show cause notice was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action could not stand in law, and the writ petition succeeded with the impugned proceedings set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary action is unsustainable where it is initiated by an incompetent authority, founded on mere suspicion instead of evidence, conducted in breach of natural justice, or pursued through a second notice that does not fairly permit the delinquent to meet the findings and proposed penalty.

---