1. Appeal against order quashing dismissal of employee based on audit report — Charges of financial irregularities. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
The Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Kana Ram – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 214 of 2020
Decided On : 13-03-2026
Important Points
Non-supply of foundation documents in a departmental enquiry violates natural justice. Furthermore, arbitrary disparity in punishment between a subordinate and a superior for similar irregularities, coupled with the failure to issue speaking orders, renders the disciplinary action unsustainable.
Subject
Service Law - Departmental Enquiry
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1974 - Departmental Enquiry - Non-supply of documents - Principles of Natural Justice - Where charges are founded upon a special audit report, the non-supply of the said report to the delinquent employee results in the denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend and constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice (Para 5.1).
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Punishment - Proportionality - Any disparity in treatment where a subordinate employee is dismissed while a superior officer, responsible for overall supervision, is awarded only a minor penalty for the same set of irregularities reflects arbitrariness in disciplinary action (Para 5.2).
(C) Administrative Law - Speaking Orders - Requirement - Disciplinary and appellate authorities are required to record specific findings on each charge; general observations and cryptic orders without assigning adequate reasons are unsustainable (Para 5.3).
Facts of the case:
A Lower Division Clerk was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry based on a special audit report alleging financial irregularities. The employee contended that the audit report was not supplied and that duties were performed under the supervision of a superior. It was observed that a senior officer responsible for the overall functioning of the depot was awarded only a minor penalty for the same set of audit irregularities. The Single Judge quashed the dismissal and granted consequential benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the non-supply of the foundation audit report violated the principles of natural justice. It further found that the extreme penalty of dismissal imposed on a subordinate, while a superior received a minor penalty for similar irregularities, was arbitrary. Moreover, the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to issue speaking orders and did not record specific findings on each individual charge.
Issues: Whether the non-supply of the audit report vitiated the enquiry, whether the disparity in punishment between the subordinate and superior officer was arbitrary, and whether the failure to pass speaking orders rendered the disciplinary action illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: Documents forming the foundation of charges must be supplied to the employee to ensure a fair and reasonable enquiry. Arbitrary disparity in punishment for similarly situated employees arising from the same irregularities is impermissible. Orders passed by disciplinary and appellate authorities must be speaking and contain specific findings on each charge.
Result: Special Appeal (Writ) dismissed.
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Punishment - Proportionality - Any disparity in treatment where a subordinate employee is dismissed while a superior officer, responsible for overall supervision, is awarded only a minor penalty for the same set of irregularities reflects arbitrariness in disciplinary action (Para 5.2).
(C) Administrative Law - Speaking Orders - Requirement - Disciplinary and appellate authorities are required to record specific findings on each charge; general observations and cryptic orders without assigning adequate reasons are unsustainable (Para 5.3).
Facts of the case:
A Lower Division Clerk was dismissed from service following a departmental enquiry based on a special audit report alleging financial irregularities. The employee contended that the audit report was not supplied and that duties were performed under the supervision of a superior. It was observed that a senior officer responsible for the overall functioning of the depot was awarded only a minor penalty for the same set of audit irregularities. The Single Judge quashed the dismissal and granted consequential benefits.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the non-supply of the foundation audit report violated the principles of natural justice. It further found that the extreme penalty of dismissal imposed on a subordinate, while a superior received a minor penalty for similar irregularities, was arbitrary. Moreover, the disciplinary and appellate authorities failed to issue speaking orders and did not record specific findings on each individual charge.
Issues: Whether the non-supply of the audit report vitiated the enquiry, whether the disparity in punishment between the subordinate and superior officer was arbitrary, and whether the failure to pass speaking orders rendered the disciplinary action illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: Documents forming the foundation of charges must be supplied to the employee to ensure a fair and reasonable enquiry. Arbitrary disparity in punishment for similarly situated employees arising from the same irregularities is impermissible. Orders passed by disciplinary and appellate authorities must be speaking and contain specific findings on each charge.
Result: Special Appeal (Writ) dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
- non-supply of documents
- disparate treatment
- findings on charges
-
disciplinary proceedings
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- judicial review
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.P. Garg
For the Respondents: Tanveer Ahmad, Iliyas Khan
For the Appellant : R.P. Garg
For the Respondents: Tanveer Ahmad, Iliyas Khan
Table of Contents
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
1. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred by the appellant claiming the following relief:
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the special appeal (writ) and the order/judgment dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the present case in favour of the appellant.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent–writ petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant) with the appellant–Corporation and was posted at the Kota Depot under the supervision of the Depot Manager. During the course of a special audit conducted on 11.08.2000, certain financial irregularities and discrepancies were allegedly noticed in the functioning of the depot. On the basis of the said audit report, the respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2000 containing nine charges pertaining to alleged irregularities in issuance of challans, debit and credit notes, maintenance of accounts and other related matters.
2.1. The respondent submitted his reply denying the allegations and contended that he had no independent charge of the depot and was merely performing duties under the instructions and supervision of the Depot Manager. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges to be proved. Acting upon the said report, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the respondent from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the respondent also came to be rejected vide order dated 01.02.2005.
2.2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the respondent preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5031/2005 before the hon’ble Court, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 06.12.2019, whereby the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order were quashed and set aside with consequential benefits. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the appellant–Corporation has preferred the present Special Appeal (Writ).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–Corporation submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed a serious error in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent, while working as a Junior Assistant/Lower Division Clerk, was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.10.2000 containing nine charges, which were of serious nature relating to financial irregularities noticed during a special audit conducted at the Kota Depot. It was submitted that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1974, and after affording full opportunity of hearing and defence to the respondent, the Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. Acting upon the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.06.2002 dismissing the respondent from service, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 01.02.2005.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent had an alternative efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore the writ petition itself was not maintainable. It was contended that the learned Single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition without considering the preliminary objection raised by the appellant in this regard. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 3936, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa , (2009) 4 SCC 299 and Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana , (1985)
