The court emphasized that a major punishment cannot be imposed without a proper inquiry, reinforcing principles of natural justice and confirming the necessity of remanding such cases for procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

G. NARENDAR, J :

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether in a case of an enquiry being vitiated by non-observance with the principles of natural justice or denial of opportunity of being heard, the High Court is entitled to absolutely quash the proceedings?

3. The brief facts are that the respondent was visited with a show-cause notice alleging certain misconduct. The merits of which this Court is not delving into in view of the short point on which the appeal is sought to be addressed.

4. The respondent effected his reply to the show-cause notice. The appellants, without directing the conduct of an enquiry, straightaway proceeded to impose the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order, dated 26.11.2004, imposing the penalty, the writ petition came to be preferred in the year 2012 i.e., almost after the lapse of eight years. The said writ petition ultimately came to be considered and disposed of by the learned Single Judge, by order, dated 26.04.2024. While disposing of the writ petition and quashing the punishment imposed, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the ruling rendered in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab , 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504. The learned Single Judge has been pleased to hold that imposition of the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect amounts to a major punishment and that imposition of major punishment without an enquiry amounts to non-observance with the principles of natural justice and the same vitiates the punishment imposed and holding that no major penalty can be imposed without conducting a detailed enquiry, was pleased to quash the punishment imposed and was pleased to allow the writ petition.

5. The law in this regard is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the ruling rendered in Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem v. S. Arichandran , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1282 , has been pleased to observe and hold in Paras 14, 15 and 16 as under :

. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the same was in breach of principles of Natural Justice, inasmuch as, the copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report was not furnished to the delinquent and his comments were not called for on the Inquiry Officer's Report. It is to be noted that the respondent-delinquent was facing the departmental inquiry with respect to a very serious charge of misappropriation. Therefore, the High Court ought to have remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated.

15. At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Rajit Singh , (2022) 15 SCC 254 , in which this Court had considered its earlier decision in the case of L.I.C. v. A. Masilamani , (2013) 6 SCC 530 = (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 608, is required to be referred to. In Paragraph 15, it is observed and held as under :

"15. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natura