Holding

When an employee doubts the impartiality of the enquiry officer, the authorities must appoint a different officer and allow the employee a fair opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses; failure to do so violates natural justice and renders the dismissal order void.

Summary

The widow of a turner who was dismissed from service challenged the disciplinary enquiry that led to his dismissal. The employee had alleged bias against the appointed enquiry officer and requested a change of officer, which the authorities ignored and proceeded with an ex parte enquiry. After the enquiry officer examined witnesses without the employee’s presence, the employee sought to recall those witnesses for cross‑examination and to present his own evidence, but was instead directed to submit a written brief, which he did not, resulting in his dismissal. The dismissal was confirmed on appeal, and the employee later died; his widow’s claim for pension and compassionate appointment was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the failure to accede to the request for a neutral officer and to allow cross‑examination violated the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court quashed the dismissal orders, directed payment of pension and salary benefits, and ordered consideration of a compassionate appointment for the widow.

Issues considered

Whether the authorities were required to accede to the employee's request for a change of enquiry officer on grounds of bias.
Whether the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry, including proceeding ex parte and denying the employee an opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses, violated the principles of natural justice.
Whether the dismissal order, confirmed on appeal, is void on account of such violations.
Whether the widow is entitled to pension, salary benefits, and compassionate appointment following the employee's death.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 21, s. Article 311(2)

Subjects

natural justicedisciplinary enquirybiaschange of enquiry officerArticle 14Article 21Article 311(2)pensioncompassionate appointmentservice lawadministrative law

Judgment

'
A SMT. INDRANI BAI
v. t
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 21, 1994 r
I
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] \.
r

Service law: Civil Service-Disciplinary Enquiry-Rules of Natural Jus-
lice-Where employee doubted impartiality of enquiry and represented at the
earliest for change of Enquiry Officer, held, request should have been acceded
c ta-Failure to reopen ex parte proceedings and to allow employee to cross-ex-
amine employer's witnesses already examined and to give him an opportunity
to adduce evidence in rebuttaf-Amount to violation of principles of natural
justice andfair play-Cons~tution of Indiir-Artic/es 14, 21 and 311 (2)-Ad-
ministrative Law.
D
A disciplinary enquiry was instituted against an employee (since •
\.
deceased) on a charge of attempt to commit theft. The employee alleged '
bias against the Enquiry Officer and represented to the higher authorities
for a change in the Enquiry Officer. This request was not acceded to, and
_,
be was directed to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was being
E proceeded with ex parte. The employee thereafter appeared before the
•
Enquiry Officer and sought an opportunity to recall the witnesses already •
examined by the employer for cross-examination, and also to examine
himself and bis witnesses in rebuttal. However, instead of giving him such
an opportunity, the Enquiry Officer directed him to submit a written brief.
The employee.did not do so. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service l
F •
was passed, which was confirmed in appeal. I-
•
In the meantime, the employee died. The prayer of bis widow for
pension and appointment on compassionate grounds was turned down by
the authorities on the grounds that be bad been dismissed from service.
G She thereafter filed an Application under the Administrative Tribunals Act
1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, which was
•
dismissed on the ground of multiplicity of causes of action. She thereupon ~
...L ""1~
appealed to this Court by Special Leaves.

H Allowing the Appeal, this Court
608
r
INDRANIBAI (SMT.) v. u.o.i. 609

.... HELD : 1. When the employee, who had entertained a donbt abont A
the Impartiality of the enquiry officer made a representation at the earliest ·
to change the Enquiry Officer, the authorities shonld have acceded to the
request and appointed another Enquiry Officer, other than'the one whose
objectivity was doubted. Unfortunately this was not done. [6U-E-FJ

2. Despite the directions issued by the higher authorities the Enquiry
B
Officer directed the delinquent to submit written brief. In other words be
proceeded from the stage where be last closed the proceedings. That was
not the spirit of the order. of the Director General. Thus it is a clear case
of violation of principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer was
obviously expected to recall the ex parte order and to give the delinquent c
an opportunity to cross-examjne the witnesses already examined and to
adduce bis evidence In rebuttal. However, the Enquiry Officer did not
adopt the said procedure which would have been just; fair and reasonable.
The delinquent had not been afforded a fair opportunity, much less a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. That has resulted in violation
of the principle of natural justice and fair play offending Articles 14, 21
D
and 31(2) of the Constitution. The orders of dismissal as confirmed by the
appellate authority are accordingly quashed. (611-D-H, 612-A)

3. The Respondents are directed to pay the appellant pension accord·
ing to the Rules and to pay to the appellant the full salary payable to the E
deceased from \he date of bis suspension till the date of bis superannuation
or the date preceding bis death, whichever is earlier with all consequential
benefits, after deducting subsistance allowance already paid. [612-B-C)

4. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant
for suitable appointment to any post for which she .may be eligible, for F
• rehabilitation on compassionate grounds. [612-A-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3962 of
1994.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.90 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 85 of 1990.

Saojay Kunur and R.N. Keshwaoi for the Appellaot.
-r
Kailash Vasdev and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered : ......

Leave granted.

The appellant is the widow of one Narayan Naidu, a turner in gun
carriage factory at Jab al Pur. On April 15, 1980, it was alleged, that he
B
attempted to commit theft of 50 mm grill. On April 17, 1980, a charge
T
memo was given. On June 26, 1980, the General Manager appointed the
enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against him. The delinquent made a
representation to higher authorities that the enquiry officer was biassed
against him and requested to appoint any other impartial person to conduct
c enquiry against him. Instead of acceding to the request, the higher
authorities had directed the delinquent on October 23, 1980 to participate
in the enquiry. On November 20, 24 and 30, 1980, witnesses were examined
ex parte. But, unfortunately, on December 14, 1980, the delinquent was set
ex-parte as he did not appear before the enquiry officer. On March 5, 1981,
D he made another representation to recall the witnesses already examined
for cross-examination and to give him a further opportunity to examine
himself and his witnesses in rebuttal. The authorities directed the delin- •
quent, by their order dated September 26, 1981, to attend the enquiry when '
fixed and cooperate with the enquiry officer. Pursuant to this direction, as
found from the record, that the enquiry officer, instead of reopening the
E matter and giving him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
already examined or to examine himself as a witness or his \\itnesses, by a
letter dated November 26, 1991 has stated thus :

"Your were advised to submit a written brief vide letter No.
F MWP/EN0/14318/81, dated 27.8.81, by 10.9.81. No reply was
received from your end. However, the Presenting Officer has
presented his written brief, a copy of which is enclosed.

You are hereby given another opportunity to submit your
written brief before 15.12.1981 failing which, it will be presumed
G that you have no written brief to be submitted. The proceedings
of the Court of Enquiry held, have already been sent to you vide
letter No. MPl/EN0/149318/80, dt. 18.1.81."

Therefore, the delinquent did not submit his written brief and an ~
H order of dismissal from service was passed and on appeal, it was confirmed ..
,.
!NDRANI BAI (SMT.) v. U.0.1. 611

In the meanwhile, the delinquent died on March 1, 1985. His widow A
made a representation for payment of gratuity, pension and other retrial
benefits and also sought alternative employment for her subsistance. As
regards payment of gratuity, it has been paid though belatedly, but the
pension was not paid on the ground that the delinquent was dismissed from
service. It is said that the delinquent had since been dismissed from service,
B
she is not eligible for any compassionate appointment. Her O.A. No.
85/1990 was dismissed by C.A.T., Jabal Pur on April 26, 1990 on the ground
of multiplicity of causes of action. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

While issuing notice to the respondents, we had directed the respon-
dents to place before us the entire record. A counter affidavit has been C
filed and record also has been placed before us. In fairness, Shri Kailash
Vasdev, learned counsel for the U.0.1., having gone through the entire
record, has placed necessary material before us. As seen from the narration
of the facts, that after the direction was issued by the Director General in
his letter dated September 26, 1981, the enquiry officer had not recalled D
the ex plllte order dated December 14, 1980 nor did he recall the witnesses
already examined on September 20, 24 and 30, 1981 for cross-examination
nor given him an opportunity to adduce his evidence in rebuttal. On the
other hand, it is clear from the letter extracted hereinbefore that despite
the direction issued by the higher authorities, the enquiry officer directed
the delinquent to submit written brief, in other words, he proceeded from E
the stage where he last closed the proceedings. That was not the spirit of
the order of the Director General. Thus, it is a clear case of the violation
of principles of natural justice. It is seen that right through, the delinquent
officer had entertained a doubt about the impartiality of the enquiry to be
conducted by the enquiry officer, when he made a representation at the F
earliest, requesting to change the enquiry officer, the authorities should
have acceded to the request and appointed another enquiry officer, other
than the one whose objectivity doubted. Unfortunately, that was not done.
Even after the Director General had given an opportunity to the delinquent
to participate in the enquiry, the enquiry officer obviously was expected lo
recall the ex parte order and given the delinquent an opportunity to G
cross-examine the witnesses already examined and to adduce his evidence
in rebuttal. However, the enquiry officer did not adopt the said procedure
which would have been just, fair and reasonable.

Under these circumstances, it is a clear case that the delinquent had H
\

612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A not been afforded a fair opportunity, much less a reasonable opportunity
to defend himself. That has resulted in violation of the principles of natural
justice and fair play offending Arts. 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution.
The orders of dismissal as confirmed by the appellate authority are
accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to grant to the appel-
lant the pensionary benefits according to rules and also to consider her
B case for suitable appointment on any post to which she may be eligible for
rehabilitation, on compassionate ground. The respondents are further
directed to pay the full salary payable to the deceased delinquent to the
appellant from the date on which he was kept under suspension till date
on which he would have attained supernnuation or February 28, 1985, the
C preceding date of his death whichever is earlier, with all consequential
benefits after deducting the subsistance allowance already paid, right from
the date of the suspension order till date of dismissal. The exercise should
be done.within three months from the date of the receipt of the order.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs as it is a legal aid case.
D
R.R. Appeal allowed.