Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Based On 'No Evidence' Or Denial Of Crucial Documents: Allahabad High Court Quashes Dismissal

"The disciplinary enquiry officer cannot base his findings on mere hypothesis. Mere ipse dixit on his part cannot be a substitute of evidence." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated 18 September 2026, held that a disciplinary enquiry cannot be sustained when it is based on "no evidence," relies on disputed photocopies without production of original records, and denies the delinquent employee an effective opportunity to defend themselves.

Justice Irshad Ali, allowing a writ petition filed by a former bank employee, observed that the disciplinary authorities cannot shift the burden of proof onto the employee or assume the existence of foundational facts that have not been established by the management.

The petitioner, an officer at the Punjab National Bank, was dismissed from service in 2012 following allegations of financial irregularities and unauthorized transactions. The disciplinary proceedings were predicated on the assumption that the petitioner was acting as a "System Administrator," a designation the petitioner consistently denied. Despite the petitioner’s repeated requests for relevant documents and the production of original records, the enquiry proceeded, leading to his dismissal and the subsequent rejection of his departmental appeal.

The primary questions before the court were whether the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated by the non-supply of documents and the denial of an effective opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses. Further, the court examined whether the Bank could base its findings on a "foundational fact"—the petitioner's designation as System Administrator—without producing any appointment order or formal documentary evidence to that effect.

Enquiry Proceedings Must Be Fair and Objective

The court emphasized that a disciplinary enquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding where the enquiry officer must act as an independent adjudicator. It is not the role of the enquiry officer to supplement the management's case or draw presumptions to bridge gaps in the evidence. The court held that while the strict rules of the Evidence Act may not apply, the findings must still be based on legally admissible and probative evidence.

Non-Supply of Documents Constitutes Denial of Natural Justice

 The court noted that the denial of documents that are directly connected to the charges against a delinquent employee violates the principles of natural justice. The bench observed that when a bank relies upon internal vouchers, ledgers, and computer records, the employee has a right to inspect the originals to test their authenticity. The failure of the Bank to produce original records despite the petitioner’s specific objections rendered the findings perverse.

No Foundational Evidence for Misconduct

The court highlighted that the entire disciplinary proceeding rested on the assumption that the petitioner was a "System Administrator." Since the Bank failed to produce any office order or contemporaneous document proving this designation—and given that the issue had already been decided against the Bank by a competent civil court—the disciplinary authority could not proceed on that assumption. The court ruled that a disciplinary charge founded upon a status that the employee never possessed is legally unsustainable.

Burden of Proof Cannot Be Shifted

The court expressed concern over the "pre-determined approach" adopted by the disciplinary authorities, noting that the petitioner was effectively required to prove his innocence. The bench clarified that the burden of proof lies squarely on the management to establish the charges through reliable evidence. The appellate authority's observation that the petitioner failed to bring "fresh facts" was termed as an erroneous approach to the burden of proof.

Finding the disciplinary proceedings fundamentally flawed, the court quashed the dismissal order and the appellate order. The court directed the respondent-Bank to treat the petitioner as in continuous service, granting him all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation. The court emphasized that in cases where the enquiry process is irreparably broken and has already caused prolonged litigation, remitting the matter for a de novo enquiry would not serve the ends of justice.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2026