Acquiescence in domestic enquiry can bar later writ challenge to competence when objections are raised only after an adverse report.

A party who knowingly participates in a joint domestic enquiry without timely objection may be barred from later challenging the competence of the authority or enquiry officer under Article 226. Here, the appellant knew of the joint enquiry from the start, obtained permission to defend himself, cross-examined witnesses, and raised the jurisdictional objection only after the report went against him. The Court treated the challenge as belated and found that, although jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, discretionary writ relief may be refused where a party acquiesces in the proceedings, takes a chance on the outcome, and shows no prejudice from the procedure followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, having participated in the joint domestic enquiry without timely objection, could later challenge the competence of the Syndicate to order the enquiry and the enquiry officer to conduct it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The appellant knew of the joint enquiry from its inception, sought and obtained permission to defend himself in those proceedings, cross-examined witnesses, and raised the jurisdictional objection only after the enquiry report went against him. On those facts, the challenge was held to be belated. The Court held that while jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, a party who knowingly acquiesces in the proceedings and takes a chance of a favourable result may be refused discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction. The absence of any shown prejudice from the joint enquiry further supported refusal of interference.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have acquiesced in the enquiry and was disentitled to invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge it; the objection to competence was rejected.

---