The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of conducting an enquiry when charges are refuted by the delinquent employee, even in cases where the rules do not make a provision for an enquiry in cases of minor penalties.

D. Murugesan, J.

The petitioner was appointed to the Central Industrial Security Force during the year 1990 as a Constable. He was issued with a charge memo dated 1. 2007 containing the following charges:-

"(1) Gross misconduct and negligence in that No.914440095 Constable C.K.G.Nathan of CISF Unit CPCL Manali was detailed for "A" shift duty from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs on 112. 2006 at West Gate-II in checking Rifle failed to take care of his duty area due to which unclaimed amount of Rs.485/-recovered from his area of responsibility by a team while raiding the area at about 1235 hrs on 112. 06. Hence the charge.

(2) Gross misconduct, in that No.914440095 Constable C.K.G.Nathan of CISF Unit CPCL Manali discarded the rifle issued to him without properly handing over it and intentionally ignored to change the rifle duty as per the instructions at West Gate-II on 112. 2006. Hence the charge."

By explanation dated 11. 2007, he disputed the charges. In spite of such denial, the Assistant Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 2. 2007 imposing a minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year which will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The said order was taken on appeal before the Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, the second respondent and the same was rejected on 26. 2007. The orders of both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are questioned in this writ petition.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The only ground of challenge is that inasmuch as the charges are denied, the respondents ought to have conducted enquiry before imposing the penalty. On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondents that in the event the respondents impose a minor penalty, no enquiry is contemplated in terms of Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. The punishment of withholding of increment is a minor penalty in terms of Rule 34(ix) of the said Rules. Hence no enquiry is contemplated.

4. We have carefully considered the above submissions. Of course, as per Rule 34(ix) of the Rules, withholding of increment is a minor penalty. Rule 37(1)(b), of course, empowers that in the event the disciplinary authority so desires can order an enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that only in the event the disciplinary authority desires depending upon the case warranting an enquiry, such an enquiry could be ordered and not otherwise. In our opinion, the stand taken by the respondents cannot be accepted. When the charges are denied, denial of the same must necessarily be presumed as one of placing the burden of proving the charges on the respondents. Though a right is conferred on the disciplinary authority to order enquiry if he is satisfied on the facts of this case, such a right is not conferred under Rule 37 on the delinquent employee. In such a situation, it is for the Court to import the principles of natural justice for such an enquiry in the event the charges are denied. Enquiry is a bare minimum for a delinquent to expect from the employer before he is inflicted with the penalty, even in case of minor penalty.

5. The principles of natural justice means "fair play in action" and the requirement of natural justice depends upon the facts of each case. In judging the validity of an order when the complaint is admittedly non compliance of the principles of natural justice, the following principles must be kept in mind. In case the rules contemplate either a notice calling for explanation or an enquiry or a personal enquiry, compliance of the same is mandatory. In fact, Rule 36 of the Rules relating to the procedure for imposing major penalties contemplates the above procedure and to this extent there cannot be any dispute.

6. Whether such compliance of the principles of natural justice