Fair disciplinary inquiry requires consideration of material witnesses; refusal to examine a key witness can vitiate proceedings.

A disciplinary inquiry must be conducted fairly, and an inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity must consider a delinquent employee's request to summon a material witness. Refusal to examine a witness directly connected with the disputed measurement and passing of work can amount to denial of a fair opportunity and cause prejudice. On the facts, the failure to summon the Assistant Engineer, who was relevant to the core factual controversy, supported the conclusion that the inquiry was procedurally unfair. The concurrent findings that the proceedings were vitiated by unfairness therefore disclosed no legal infirmity, and interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated for failure to consider and examine a witness sought by the delinquent employee, and whether the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and High Court warranted interference.

Analysis: A disciplinary inquiry must be conducted fairly, and an inquiry officer, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, is obliged to consider a delinquent employee's request to summon a material witness. Refusal to address a relevant request, especially where the witness could clarify the core factual controversy, amounts to denial of a fair opportunity. The failure to examine the Assistant Engineer, who was shown to be directly concerned with the measurement and passing of the timber work, supported the view that the inquiry was not fairly conducted and caused prejudice. In such circumstances, the concurrent findings that the proceedings suffered from procedural unfairness did not disclose any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings were rightly held to be unfair for non-consideration of the request to summon the material witness, and interference with the Tribunal's order was not justified.

---