Non-supply of crucial documents during disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice, justifying the quashing of disciplinary findings.

JUDGMENT :

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 02.02.2023 in W.P.(C) No.722 of 2012. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).

2. Appellant had in the Writ Petition challenged Exhibits P8, P13 and P16 which were issued as part of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction in pay upon him and he alleged that the penalty imposed upon him would incur a pecuniary loss of more than Rs.17,00,000/-. He had contended that while the other employee, who had been charge sheeted along with him for the very same offence, had only been given a lesser penalty of withholding increments for 3 years, he was visited with a more harsh and disproportionate punishment. The appellant had thus filed the W.P. (C) seeking the to quash Exhibits P8, P13 and P16.

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia terming the same as one devoid of merits. It was held that once the report of Enquiry Officer has been deliberated upon by the Disciplinary Authority and also pondered by the Appellate Authority in the statutory appeal filed, the Writ Court cannot interfere in the findings until and unless it is shown that there has been certain violations of guidelines issued in various judgments regarding non-supply of a copy of the enquiry or any violation of principles of natural justice. Holding that there was no reason to interfere, the W.P.(C) was dismissed. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the said findings of the learned Single Judge.

4. Heard Sri.Kishore D., Advocate for the appellant and Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, Advocate, Standing Counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider the contentions raised by the appellant regarding the non supply of crucial documents recorded during the preliminary enquiry and that such non supply had impaired the appellant from properly defending the charges levelled against him. This, it is contended, would singularly render illegal, the entire disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The learned Single Judge had overlooked the said crucial aspect, though the same was specifically highlighted by the appellant. The learned counsel referring to exhibits produced especially Exhibit P25 investigation report dated 30.11.2006, submits that the same on its very face established that a preliminary enquiry had been conducted and statements of various persons had been recorded. However, the copy of the investigation report, preliminary report, or statement of the witnesses in the said enquiry had not been handed over to the appellant which detrimentally impacted the rights of the appellant as he was handicapped from effectively cross examining the said witnesses. Though legally bound to supply the same, the appellant never received such copies though all the persons whose statements had been thus recorded had been examined as witnesses by the management in the enquiry proceedings. The learned counsel specifically points to Exhibit P25 which refers to the statements of Sri.P.T.Philippose, Sri.K.C.Kedarlal, Sri.A.K.Peuosmon and Sri K.G.Biju, who were examined as PW1 to PW4 by the management, whom the appellant was not able to confront insofar as the statements rendered by them had not been provided. Thus, the right of the appellant to defend the case, according to the learned counsel, was seriously impaired. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the case highlighted by the appellant comes within the guidelines prescribed by the Hon’ble Supr