Non-Supply Of Inquiry Officer's Report Before Imposing Penalty Vitiates Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Employer Shows Valid Justification: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The employee was a government servant under the Ministry of Railways. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, culminating in a chargesheet. An inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report which found him guilty. Based on this report, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing a penalty on him. This penalty order was further upheld by the appellate authority.

The employee challenged it before the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition. The employee contended that a copy of the Inquiry Report dated 25.06.2019 was not provided to him before the penalty was imposed. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted this plea and quashed the penalty order. Aggrieved by this decision, the Union of India (Ministry of Railways) filed the appeal before the High Court.

It was argued by the Union of India that the Single Judge erred in quashing the disciplinary proceedings. It was further contended that the failure to supply the inquiry report did not vitiate the entire disciplinary process and that the consequent penalty orders should be upheld.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that non-supply of the inquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority's decision violates natural justice. Further furnishing the report is a mandatory requirement, and disciplinary action without it is invalid unless the employee has waived the right or the employer shows a valid justification. Relying upon the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh, he argued that such a procedural lapse vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding and the penalty order.

Findings of the Court

The cases of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan and ECIL v. B. Karunakar were relied upon by the court which mandate that a copy of the inquiry report must be furnished to a delinquent employee before any penalty is imposed. It was noted by the court that this requirement is a fundamental component of natural justice, intended to provide the employee a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.

Further the reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh which provided that if an employer fails to supply the inquiry report, the burden falls upon them to justify this failure. In the absence of a valid justification, the order of punishment must be set aside without requiring the employee to show any prejudice.

It was held by the court that the Single Judge was correct in applying the same principle. Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge's decision to quash the penalty orders due to the non-supply of the inquiry report, the Division Bench upheld the decision.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal filed by the Union of India (Ministry of Railways) was disposed of by the court.

Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Railways vs. Sh. R.K. Mittal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1480

Case No. : LPA 263/2025, CM APPL. 23275/2025, CM APPL. 23278/2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Appearance not given

Counsel for the Respondent : Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Rajkumar Maurya, Krishna Chaitanya and Tanisha Samanta, Advocates, Shanker Raju and Nilansh Gaur, Advocates