The principles of natural justice are applicable to disciplinary proceedings against employees, and an order of termination of service that violates those principles is illegal and void.

Headnote:
The court held that the principles of natural justice are applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, a conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), and that the order of termination of his service was illegal and void for violation of those principles. The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry proceedings, that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, and that the order of punishment did not contain any reasons. The court also held that the requirement of recording reasons in the order of punishment is a part of the principles of natural justice and that a non-speaking order is liable to be declared void.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), was suspended on 9.7.82. A charge sheet dated 9.7. 82 was served upon him for a departmental inquiry. By an order dated 20.8.82 of the Regional Manager, Ajmer, Regional Depot Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry proceedins were fixed on 21.9.82, 7.10.82, 20.10.82, 6.11.82, 19.11.82, 10.12.82, 23.12.82, 17.1.83 and 4.2.83. i ne petitioner attended the inquiry on 14.2.83 also. According to him he was told by the Inquiry Officer that no proceeding will be taken on that day and he will be intimated of the next date. No further date was however intimated to the petitioner. Instead, he was served with the order dated 8.4.83. In between this period the petitioner had been reinstated on 3.2.82. The petitioner has stated that he was never served with a copy of the inquiry report either before passing of the order of punishment or after communication of it. He was not given any notice of the inquiry report nor any show cause notice proposing the penalty of removal from service was given to him. The petitioner's assertion is that the inquiry officer had made a false note about his absence on 14.2.83 and submitted his report.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry proceedings, that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, and that the order of punishment did not contain any reasons.
Issues: Whether the principles of natural justice are applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Whether the order of termination of the petitioner's service was illegal and void for violation of the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of natural justice are applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, a conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), and that the order of termination of his service was illegal and void for violation of those principles. The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry proceedings, that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, and that the order of punishment did not contain any reasons. The court also held that the requirement of recording reasons in the order of punishment is a part of the principles of natural justice and that a non-speaking order is liable to be declared void.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of termination of the petitioner's service, and directed the RSRTC to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits except the actual wages for the period between 8.4.83 and the date of the order. The court also held that the petitioner was free to file an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the wages of the period between 8.4.83 and the date of the order, and that the RSRTC was free to plead and prove that the petitioner was gainfully employed during that period.

JUDGMENT

1. - Challenge in this writ petition has been made to an order dated 8.4.83 (Annexure-4) passed by the Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer for termination of the service of petitioner of the basis of departmental inquiry held against him.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner who was serving as a Conductor in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation), was suspended on 9.7.82. A charge sheet dated 9.7. 82 was served upon him for a departmental inquiry. By an order dated 20.8.82 of the Regional Manager, Ajmer, Regional Depot Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry proceedins were fixed on 21.9.82, 7.10.82, 20.10.82, 6.11.82, 19.11.82, 10.12.82, 23.12.82, 17.12.133, 4.2.133, and 14.1.188. i ne petitioner attended the inquiry on 14.2.83 also. According to him he was told by the Inquiry Officer that no proceeding will be taken on that day and he will be intimated of the next date. No further date was however intimated to the petitioner. Instead, he was served with the order dated 8.4.83. In between this period the petitioner had been reinstated on 3.2.82. The petitioner has stated that he was never served with a copy of the inquiry report either before passing of the order of punishment or after communication of it. He was not given any notice of the inquiry report nor any show cause notice proposing the penalty of removal from service was given to him. The petitioner's assertion is that the inquiry officer had made a false note about his absence on 14.2.83 and submitted his report.

3. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent corporation even though the writ petition remained pending before the Court for over eight years. Shri Ashok Choudhary, learned counsel for non petitioner has however produced before me the inquiry file. The proceedings of the inquiry file show that the petitioner was present on 7.10.82, 22.10.82, 10.12.82, 23.12.82, 17.1.83 and 4.2.83. On 14.2.83 he has been shown to be absent. In the order sheet of 17.1.83 although the signatures of the petitioner appear but he has been marked as absent. Along with the writ petition the petitioner has produced Annexure-3 to show that he was present during the inquiry proceedings on 14.2.83 and that a certificate to this effect was given by the inquiry officer himself. When attention of Shri Ashok Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent Corporation, was drawn to the signatures of the inquiry officer on Annexure-3, he admitted that the inquiry officer had signed the said document showing the presence of the petitioner. That document in fact contains the following note "Attended DE on 14.2.83"

Below this note the inquiry officer has appended his signatures. Therefore, the petitioner's assertion that he had in fact attended the inquiry proceeding on 14.2.83 has to be accepted as correct, particularly when no reply has been filed by the non- petitioner to controvert this specific assertion of the petitioner.

4. On 14.2.83 the inquiry officer recorded that the Conductor has not been attending the proceedings even after noting the same and even after issue of summons. The complainant is not appearing deliberately and the conductor has also not filed his reply deliberately. He, therefore, recorded the inquiry proceedings are closed and ex-parte report is submitted to the disciplinary authority. From the record of inquiry it is also borne out that on 6.11.82 statement of three persons namely, Shri P.C. Mathur, Shri Sangram Singh and Shri Vankar Kaman Singh were recorded even though the petitioner had submitted an application for adjournment of the proceedings on medical grounds and had submitted medical certificate of the doctor. The inquiry report is said to have been prepared on 14.2.83 although it does not bear any particular date. On the basis of the inquiry report the Regional Manager passed the impugned order dated 8.4.83.

5. Ordi