Holding

A departmental enquiry that fails to produce witnesses and does not afford the employee an oral hearing when the charges are denied is vitiated, rendering any punishment based on it unsustainable.

Summary

The appellant, Jai Prakash Saini, was an in‑charge of a paddy procurement centre of U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. He was served with a charge‑sheet alleging short delivery of paddy and embezzlement of Rs. 2,00,850. A departmental enquiry found the charges proved and dismissed him, also ordering recovery of the amount. The appellant challenged the dismissal on the ground that the enquiry violated natural‑justice principles because no oral hearing was held and no witness was examined, despite his denial of the charges. The Supreme Court held that when the employee does not expressly admit the charges, the employer must lead evidence and allow cross‑examination; the failure to produce any witness rendered the enquiry vitiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the dismissal and recovery, and directed the Federation to conduct a fresh de‑novo enquiry within six months, or reinstate the appellant with continuity of service.

Issues considered

Whether the departmental enquiry was vitiated for not producing any witness and not holding an oral enquiry despite the appellant’s denial of the charges.
Whether the principles of natural justice under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations and Service Rules were violated.
Whether the dismissal and recovery order can be sustained in view of the alleged procedural irregularities.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated. Headnotes† U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 – Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of the paddy procurement centre at

Subjects

Violation of principles of natural justiceDe-novo enquiryNo oral hearingWitnesses not examinedDismissal of employeeOpportunity to cross examineEnquiry vitiated

Judgment

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 286 : 2026 INSC 305

Jai Prakash Saini
v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2026)
01 April 2026
[Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
In the instant case, the department had not produced any witness
in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant
were denied by him. Whether the enquiry stood vitiated.

Headnotes†
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 – U.P. Cooperative
Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 – regn. 85 –
Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation
Limited – r.84 – Dismissal from service – Violation of principles
of natural justice – Appellant was posted as the in-charge of
the paddy procurement centre at U.P. Cooperative Federation
Limited – He was served a charge-sheet alleging, inter alia,
that as the in-charge of the centre he had purchased 1946.60
quintals of paddy from farmers for delivery to M/s Pashupati
Nath for de-husking, but delivery was short by 1093.60
quintals – Departmental enquiry began – Vide supplementary
charge sheet it is alleged that appellant embezzled Rs. 2,00,850
by showing purchases of 5000 sacks of de-husked paddy for
storage – Charges proved – Appellant was dismissed from
service and a direction to recover the amount was issued –
Writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed –
Appellant, inter alia, contends that not even a single witness
was examined in support of the charges and no oral enquiry
was held as required by the extant service rules – Correctness:
Held: It is settled that unless the charged employee accepts his
guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him
would have to be held – In the enquiry, the employer /department
would have to take steps first to lead evidence against the
workmen/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to

* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 287

Jai Prakash Saini v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

cross examine those witnesses – Only thereafter, the workmen /
delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence
and/ or submit an explanation about the evidence led against him –
Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the
relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a
witness would have to be examined to prove those documents
and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered
for cross-examination – In the instant case, the department had
not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges
levelled upon the appellant were denied by him – Therefore, in
view of this court, the enquiry stood vitiated – Once the enquiry
stood vitiated, the consequential order of punishment/recovery
cannot be sustained – Impugned judgment of the High Court is
set aside – The order of dismissal and consequential recovery is
also set aside – Liberty granted to the Federation to hold a de
novo enquiry. [Paras 17, 18]

Case Law Cited
Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited & Another v. Raghunath
Singh Rana & Others [2016] 7 SCR 86 : (2016) 12 SCC 204; Sur
Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen, [1964] 3 SCR
616 : AIR 1963 SC 1914 : 1963 SCC OnLine SC 97; State of
Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh, [2008] 12 SCR 54 : (2008)
8 SCC 236 – referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; U.P. Cooperative Societies
Employees Service Regulations, 1975; Employees Service Rules,
1980 of U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited; Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Violation of principles of natural justice; De-novo enquiry;
No oral hearing; Witnesses not examined; Dismissal of employee;
Opportunity to cross examine; Enquiry vitiated.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4130 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2019 of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SB No. 12353 of 2016.
288 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Rajiv Srivastava, Ms. Garima Srivastava, Arpit Shukla, Ms. Gargi
Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Gaurav Dhingra, Sunny Choudhary, Mayur Chaturvedi, Ayush
Singh.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Manoj Misra, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court1 dated
12.04.2019 whereby the writ petition2 of the appellant impugning the
order dated 30.11.2015 dismissing him from service and directing
recovery of Rs.9,53,433 has been dismissed.
3. The appellant was employed in U.P. Cooperative Federation
Limited3 and, at the relevant time, posted as the in-charge of paddy
procurement centre. He was served a charge-sheet alleging, inter
alia, that as the in-charge of the centre he had purchased 1946.60
quintals of paddy from farmers for delivery to M/s Pashupati Nath
Food Agro (for short, M/s Pashupati Nath) for de-husking, but delivery
was short by 1093.60 quintals. During pendency of the enquiry on
the said charge-sheet, a supplementary charge-sheet was served
upon the appellant alleging that he had embezzled Rs. 2,00,850 by
showing purchases of 5000 sacks of de-husked paddy for storage.
The charges were found proved in the enquiry. As a result, the
appellant was dismissed from service and a direction to recover the
amount was issued.
4. The order of dismissal/ recovery was challenged before the High
Court, inter alia, on the ground that the enquiry was de-hors the extant

1 The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 Service Bench No.12353 of 2016
3 The Federation
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 289

Jai Prakash Saini v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

rules and violated the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded that
no oral enquiry was held, no date, place and time of enquiry was
fixed, and no witness was examined to prove the charges.
5. In the counter affidavit to the writ petition, the respondents accepted
that the service conditions of the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant
herein) were governed by the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, 19654 as well as U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service
Regulations, 19755 and Employees Service Rules, 1980 of U.P.
Cooperative Federation Limited6. It was highlighted that there existed
material on record to indicate that the appellant had embezzled the
amount sought to be recovered from him. Further, the appellant was
provided ample opportunity of hearing in the enquiry. Therefore, there
was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition
of the appellant. Reasons for the dismissal of the writ petition are
found in paragraphs 19 to 26 of the impugned judgment which are
reproduced below:
“19. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet as
well as supplementary charge-sheet dated 26.10.2013
and 21.12.2013, respectively. In the said charge-sheet as
well as supplementary charge-sheet, it was specifically
mentioned that in case petitioner wants to produce any
defence witness and wants an opportunity of personal
hearing; then, he shall specifically request for the same in
his reply to the charge-sheet and supplementary charge-
sheet.
20. The petitioner had submitted his reply dated 11.11.2013
to the charge-sheet and reply dated 03.01.2014 to the
supplementary charge-sheet denying the charges made
against him. The Enquiry Officer thereafter proceeded to
hold the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry
and submitted the enquiry report dated 23.01.2014. The
perusal of enquiry report indicates that after submission
of reply to the charge-sheet as well as supplementary

4 1965 Act
5 1975 Regulations
6 1980 Service Rules
290 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

charge-sheet the Enquiry Officer had fixed the date for
holding oral enquiry and in this regard oral enquiry was
held on 16.01.2014. The Enquiry Officer considering the
charge-sheet, evidence relied in support of the charges,
reply as well as evidence relied in defence and the relevant
records and thereafter came to conclusion that the charges
levelled against the petitioner have been found proved and
he is guilty of the alleged misconduct.
21. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not make any
request for producing any defence witness during enquiry
nor any request to cross-examine any person whose letter
or report was relied in support of the charges was made.
Neither in the replies submitted to the charge-sheet as well
as supplementary charge-sheet nor by any separate letter,
the petitioner had made any request to the Enquiry Officer
to produce any defence witness or to cross-examine any
person in order to deny the alleged charges. The Enquiry
Officer on the basis of evidence on record had come to the
conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner
are found proved.
22. In the given facts and circumstances, it is very much
clear that the Enquiry Officer had followed the procedure
prescribed in conducting the enquiry and there was no
violation of principles of natural justice.
23. So far as the contention that the petitioner was not
given opportunity to submit his reply to the enquiry report
is concerned, it is to be noted that the petitioner was issued
show cause notice dated 24.04.2014 and along with the
said show cause notice enquiry report dated 23.01.2014
was annexed. The petitioner was called upon to submit his
reply on the proposed punishment as mentioned in the said
show cause notice. He was also informed that if he wants
an opportunity of personal hearing and wants to produce
any witness, etc. in his defence, he may inform and in this
regard, may give the details of the names of witnesses and
their addresses. It was clarified that at the time of hearing,
he will have to produce his witnesses at his own expenses.
24. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 21.05.2014 to the
said show cause notice. In this reply, it was submitted that
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 291

Jai Prakash Saini v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

he has to submit many documents and produce witnesses
which is possible only in oral enquiry. In the oral enquiry,
several persons were required to be cross-examined,
however, they were not cross-examined. The opportunity
of personal hearing cannot take the place of oral enquiry.
He shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing only
after holding oral enquiry. He shall not be burdened to bear
the expenses of producing the defence witnesses.
25. The perusal of the impugned order clearly goes to
indicate that the Disciplinary Authority before passing
the impugned order had given opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and in this regard the petitioner was heard
by the Disciplinary Authority, Managing Director, PCF
on 12.06.2014. After considering the entire material on
record and reply to the show cause notice, the Disciplinary
Authority by a detailed order had come to the conclusion
that the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against
him and, as such, liable to be punished by awarding
punishment of dismissal from service. The competent
authority has passed a detailed and reasoned order to
award the punishment to the petitioner.
26. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, we are
of the considered view that the contention raised by the
petitioner has no force and the order impugned awarding
punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner is
in accordance with law.”
(Emphasis supplied)

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the records.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that despite the fact
that the charges levelled in the charge-sheet were denied by the
appellant, not even a single witness was examined in support of the
charges and no oral enquiry was held as is required by the extant
service rules, therefore, the order of dismissal and consequential
recovery is in teeth of the service rules and violates the principles
of natural justice.
9. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent it was submitted that there
was no specific denial of the charges therefore, examination of
292 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

witnesses was not required. Moreover, the enquiry report is based
on available materials and is well-reasoned, therefore, the High Court
was justified in dismissing the writ petition.
10. We have accorded due consideration to the rival submissions and
have perused the materials on record. Before we proceed to address
the respective submissions, we may put on record that while closing
the hearing of this matter, we had requested the learned counsel
for the parties to submit their written submissions. Besides, we had
requested the counsel representing the respondents to make a specific
statement whether any witness was examined by the Federation in
the course of disciplinary proceedings held against the appellant.
11. Pursuant thereto, written submissions have been filed.
12. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant, it has been
reiterated that no oral enquiry was held, no witness was examined in
the disciplinary proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are in
complete violation of the extant rules as also the principles of natural
justice. The appellant has also relied on a decision of this Court
in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited & Another vs.
Raghunath Singh Rana & Others7 wherein on ground of there being
no oral enquiry, the order of punishment was set aside with liberty to
the respondent to hold a de novo enquiry in accordance with the rules.
13. In the written submission filed on behalf of the respondents, it is
admitted that no witness was examined in the enquiry. However, it is
contended that in response to the charge of not supplying 1093.66
quintals of paddy to M/s. Pashupati Nath, the reply of the appellant
was evasive and, therefore, it amounted to admitting the charge.
Hence, it was not necessary to produce any witness to prove the
charge as under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted
need not be proved.
14. We do not find substance in the submissions made on behalf of
the respondents because there is no categorical admission of the
charge by the appellant. Further, a departmental charge-sheet is not
a plaint that an evasive reply thereto may amount to an admission.
In a departmental enquiry, unless the charge is admitted, the burden
to prove the charge lies on the employer/ department. Here, there

7 (2016) 12 SCC 204
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 293

Jai Prakash Saini v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

was no admission of guilt qua the charge. Even the High Court, in
paragraph 20 of its judgment, had indicated that the writ petitioner
(i.e., the appellant herein) had denied the charges made against him.
In our view, therefore, the contention on behalf of the respondents
that the appellant had admitted the charges is incorrect.
15. Rule 84 of the Service Rules, 1980, which governs the disciplinary
proceedings against an employee of the Federation, is in pari
materia with Regulation 85 of 1975 Regulations, which is extracted
below:
“85. Disciplinary Proceedings.—(i) The disciplinary
proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by
the inquiring officer [referred to in clause (iv) below] with
due observance of the principles of natural justice for
which it shall be necessary—
(a) The employee shall be served with a charge-sheet
containing specific charges and mention of evidence in
support of each charge and he shall be required to submit
explanation in respect of the charges within reasonable
time which shall not be less than fifteen days;
(b) Such an employee shall also be given an opportunity
to produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses
in his defence and shall also be given an opportunity of
being heard in person, if he so desires;
(c) If no explanation in respect of charge-sheet is
received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory,
the competent authority may award him appropriate
punishment considered necessary.
(ii) (a) Where an employee is dismissed or removed from
service on the ground of conduct which has led to his
conviction on a criminal charge; or
(b) Where the employee has absconded and his
whereabouts are not known to the society for more than
three months; or
(c) Where the employee refuses or fails without sufficient
cause to appear before the inquiring officer when
specifically called upon in writing to appear; or
294 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(d) Where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not
possible to communicate with him, the competent authority
may award appropriate punishment without taking, or
continuing, disciplinary proceedings.
(iii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be taken by the society
against the employee on a report made to this effect by
the inspecting authority or an officer of the society under
whose control the employee is working.
(iv) The inquiring officer shall be appointed by the appointing
authority or by an officer of the society authorised for the
purpose by the appointing authority:
Provided that the officer at whose instance disciplinary
action was started shall not be appointed as an inquiring
officer nor shall the inquiring officer be the appellate
authority:”
16. In Chamoli District Co-operative (supra), Regulation 85 of
1975 Regulations was applicable, yet no oral enquiry was
held. The order of major punishment was challenged by the
employee concerned on the ground that no oral enquiry was
held. That is, neither any witness was examined to prove the
charge nor any witness was offered for cross-examination. This
Court after considering a series of its earlier decisions including
Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen 8 and

8 See: AIR 1963 SC 1914: (1964) 3 SCR 616: 1963 SCC OnLine SC 97
“4. … An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded
against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are
examined -- ordinarily in the presence of the employee -- in respect of the charges, (iii) the
employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity
to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and
(v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report. In the present
case the persons whose statements made behind the backs of the employees were used by
the inquiring authority were not made available for cross examination but it would appear that
they were not even present at the inquiry. It does not even appear that these reports were made
available to the employee at any time before the inquiry was held. Even if the persons who
made the reports had been present and the employee given an opportunity to cross examine
them, it would have been difficult to say in these circumstances that that was a fair and sufficient
opportunity. But in this case, it appears that the persons who made the reports did not attend the
inquiry at all. From whatever aspect the matter is examined it is clear that there was no inquiry
worth the name and the tribunal was justified in entirely ignoring the conclusion reached by the
Domestic Tribunal.”
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 295

Jai Prakash Saini v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

State of Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh 9 , concluded
thus:
“22. From the propositions of law, as enunciated by the
Apex Court as noted above, and the facts of the present
case, we arrive at the following conclusions:
22.1. After service of charge sheet dated 16.01.1993
although the petitioners submitted his reply on 04.02.1993
but neither Inquiry Officer fixed any date of oral inquiry nor
any inquiry was held by the inquiry Officer.
22.2. Mandatory requirement of a disciplinary inquiry i.e.
holding of an inquiry when the charges are refuted and
serving the inquiry report to the delinquent has been
breached in the present case.
22.3. Respondent 1 employee having not been given
opportunity to produce his witnesses in his defence and
having not been given an opportunity of being heard in
person, the statutory provisions as enshrined in Regulation
85(i)(b), have been violated.
22.4. The disciplinary authority issued show case notice
dated 04.05.1993 to respondent 1 employee without
holding of an inquiry and subsequent resolution by
disciplinary authority taken in the year 2000 without their
being any further steps is clearly unsustainable. The High

9 See: (2008) 8 SCC 236
“15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge:
1. The inquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the
inquiries do not become empty formalities.
2. If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the inquiry
or if the inquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not
be the inquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the
inquiry officer, during the inquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding
an inquiry is assigned to some other officer.
3. In an inquiry, the employer /department should take steps first to lead evidence against
the workmen / delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine the
witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workmen / delinquent be asked whether
he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence
led against him.
4. On receipt of the inquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part
of the disciplinary / punishing authority to supply a copy of the inquiry report and all
connected materials relied on by the inquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if
any.”
296 [2026] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court has rightly quashed the dismissal order by giving
liberty to the Bank to hold de novo inquiry within a period
of six months, if it so desires.
22.5. The bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the
disciplinary inquiry as per directions of the High Court in
para 1 of the judgment. The High Court has already held
that petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension
and shall be paid suspension allowance in accordance
with the rules.”
17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur Enamel (supra) and Kharak
Singh (supra), followed in Chamoli District Cooperative (supra),
which deals with similar service rules as are applicable here, it is
now settled that unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in
clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would have
to be held. In the enquiry, the employer /department would have to
take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen / delinquent
charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine those
witnesses. Only thereafter, the workmen / delinquent shall be asked
whether he wants to lead any evidence and/ or submit an explanation
about the evidence led against him. Even in a case based solely
on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are
admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be
examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the
witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination.
18. In the instant case, we find that the department had not produced
any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon
the appellant were denied by him. Therefore, in our view, the enquiry
stood vitiated. Once the enquiry stood vitiated, the consequential
order of punishment/ recovery cannot be sustained. We therefore
allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court is set aside. The writ petition of the appellant stands allowed to
the extent indicated below. The order of dismissal and consequential
recovery is set aside. The Federation is, however, at liberty to hold a
de novo enquiry, if it so desires, within a period of six months from
the date of this order. If the Federation does not hold de novo enquiry
as permitted above, the appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement
with benefit of continuity in service including arrears of salary after
adjusting suspension allowance, if any, paid already. In case the
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 297

Jai Prakash Saini v.
Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors.

Federation chooses to hold an enquiry, it shall reinstate the appellant
and place him under suspension till completion of the enquiry and
during this period pay suspension allowance as may be payable in
accordance with law. In case de novo enquiry is held, other service
benefits including arrears of salary as well as benefits of continuity
in service shall depend on the outcome of the enquiry.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
20. There is no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan