Disciplinary Authority Cannot Punish Without Proof, Witnesses, or Furnishing of Enquiry Report: Supreme Court Quashes Punishment Imposed After Retirement

“A Document Does Not Prove Itself — The Enquiry Was a Charade, Violating Every Tenet of Due Process” —  In a powerful affirmation of procedural fairness and the right to defend oneself, the Supreme Court of India set aside the imposition of pension cut and monetary recovery ordered against a retired Assistant Engineer, citing gross violations of natural justice, lack of lawful enquiry, and failure to furnish the enquiry report.
 

Justice Dipankar Datta, authoring the judgment, minced no words in denouncing the disciplinary process: “A document does not prove itself. In the enquiry, the contents of the relied-on documents have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the contents... In the present case, no such exercise was undertaken.”
The case serves as a constitutional touchstone on the impermissibility of administrative short-cuts in post-retirement disciplinary actions, especially when natural justice and mandatory procedural rules are flagrantly bypassed.

The respondent, Ram Prakash Singh, served as an Assistant Engineer with the District Panchayat, Kushinagar, during 2004-2005. He was accused of embezzlement and financial irregularities to the tune of ₹2.5 crore, in connivance with a Junior Engineer. Two technical audit reports — dated 16 January 2006 and 23 February 2006 — concluded a total estimated loss of ₹30.083 lakh, assigning 35% liability (₹10.25 lakh) to Singh.

Singh was suspended in April 2006 and charged in August that year. However, despite multiple procedural stages, no witnesses were ever examined, no documents proved, and crucially, the enquiry report was never furnished to him.

He was dismissed just after his superannuation in 2010. That dismissal was quashed by the Tribunal in 2014, which ordered a fresh enquiry — to be completed within three months. The enquiry, however, was concluded long after the deadline, and yet again, without witnesses or evidence being lawfully proved. Based solely on the previous audit reports and his reply, Singh was found guilty, and a fresh order was passed in March 2015: imposing a 5% pension cut for five years and recovery of ₹10.52 lakh.

The Court exposed the sham nature of the enquiry: “We are at loss to comprehend how, after the first round of litigation leading to quashing of the dismissal, the same mistake could be repeated by not calling for witnesses or proving documents.”

Justice Datta emphasized that: “Materials can only be considered legal evidence if brought on record in a manner known to law… A document does not prove itself.”

Drawing from M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. Workmen and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, the Court reiterated that documents must be authenticated by competent witnesses, and opportunity to cross-examine must be provided.
The Court further held: “No oral evidence was examined… The findings were returned on surmises and conjectures, not legal evidence.”

Failure to Furnish the Enquiry Report and Flawed Invocation of 'Prejudice'
Central to the Court’s reasoning was the non-furnishing of the enquiry report, despite this being mandatory under Rule 9(4) of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

The State attempted to invoke the “test of prejudice” under ECIL v. B. Karunakar, suggesting Singh was not prejudiced by non-receipt. But the Court sharply disagreed: “Application of the test of ‘prejudice’, when the requirement is mandatory, goes against the very grain of the Constitution Bench’s decision in B. Karunakar.”

It clarified that furnishing of an enquiry report is not a mere formality, but: “A fundamental safeguard that forms an integral part of ensuring a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend against charges.”
The Supreme Court firmly held: “Where the report is not furnished and the enquiry is conducted unlawfully, the entire disciplinary action collapses.”

Time-Barred Proceedings and Lack of Tribunal Permission
The State had also failed to seek an extension of time from the Tribunal, despite its earlier direction to complete the enquiry within three months in 2014. The second enquiry report was submitted in September 2014, well beyond this window.
“Having not concluded the enquiry as per the timeline provided by the Tribunal, the order of punishment is non-est in law and cannot be given effect.”

The Court reinforced that a proceeding continued in violation of express judicial direction is impermissible and cannot be later regularized.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court’s decisions, ruling that the entire enquiry was procedurally illegal, and no valid order of punishment could follow.

Justice Datta wrote: “The respondent has been punished without due process… The enquiry was a charade, violating every tenet of fairness, reasonableness, and law.”

In consequence, the order imposing pension reduction and recovery of ₹10.52 lakh was quashed, and Singh was held entitled to all service and retirement benefits.

This judgment is a resounding assertion of constitutional principles, reminding all administrative authorities that procedural shortcuts in service law are not merely technical infractions — they are violations of fundamental rights.

Date of Decision: April 23, 2025