The court affirmed that a party cannot claim a violation of natural justice when they themselves decline to present evidence during a disciplinary enquiry.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, working as a Sub Engineer of Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd (‘the Board’ for short) has approached this court impugning the punishment order dated 07.01.2023 in Ext.P10, whereby the petitioner was imposed with punishment of withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect.

2.The said punishment order has been upheld by the revisional authority vide the order dated 07.09.2023 in Ext.P17 as well as the appellate authority vide the order dated 05.12.2023 in Ext.P18.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to lead the evidence, and therefore, there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice while conducting the disciplinary enquiry against him. The denial of adducing the evidence to the petitioner has vitiated the whole enquiry; therefore, the punishment order, appellate and revisional orders are to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Board has denied the allegation that the petitioner was denied the opportunity of leading the evidence. In fact, it is stated that the petitioner told the enquiry officer that the question of leading the evidence by him would not arise, and such a question was irrelevant as he had requested thorough consideration of re-enquiry in the matter. 5.Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent would read as under:-

“5.With respect to the averment in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that, the contention of the Delinquent/Petitioner that he was not given an opportunity to present his witnesses/documents is untrue. It is to be noted that even though the petitioner received a copy of Ext. P4 proceedings dated 06.11.2019, on 27.01.2020, petitioner did not chose to submit any list of witnesses and documents to be examined or directed from his side. The contention that the petitioner he had simultaneously given a list of witnesses and documents relied on to the Enquiry Officer, is far from true. The petitioner did not furnish any list before the Enquiry Officer.

6. With respect to the averment of the petitioner in paragraph 10, it is submitted that the petitioner had represented before the authority regarding the injustice meted out to him, requesting a re-inquiry on the matter. The same statement is seen recorded in the deposition by the Petitioner in Exbt.P 5 (However, the first referred representation is not found in the inquiry files kept at the office of Disc. Authority). On 06-11- 2019 the Disc Authority (DA) issued Exbt.P4 document, directing the Enquiry Officer (EO) to update the inquiry after affording the Delinquent/Petitioner an opportunity to present his witnesses/Documents.

7. It is submitted that, accordingly, the Enquiry Officer decided to update the inquiry and decided to conduct the first sitting (third in total) on 27-01-2020. The Delinquent/Petitioner presented himself on the day and time of hearing. Going by the direction contained in the Exbt. P4 letter, the Enquiry Officer asked him whether he is willing to produce any witnesses/documents. To this question, the Delinquent/Petitioner replied that such a question is irrelevant at this point of time, as he had already requested for a thorough re- inquiry in the matter. (Exbt. P5). This statement would show that. Delinquent/Petitioner at that particular point of time was not aware of the Exbt.P4 proceedings which contains the direction to the Enquiry Officer to update the inquiry after giving an opportunity to the Delinquent/Petitioner to present his witnesses/documents. It is seen that the Delinquent/Petitioner on the same day submitted a representation before the D A, stating that he came to know the existence of Exbt.P4 document only on 27- 01-2020, while attending the proceedings, and demanded an