Employee Who Evades Cross-Examining Witnesses Cannot Later Claim 'No Evidence' In Departmental Enquiry: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Petitioner chose to evade crossexamining the other material witnesses, and in such circumstances, the petitioner can claim no evidence or no quality evidence." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a delinquent employee who refuses to cross-examine management witnesses during a departmental enquiry cannot subsequently challenge his dismissal on the ground of lack of evidence.

A single-judge bench of Justice Harinath N. observed that constitutional courts cannot act as an appellate authority over disciplinary bodies, noting that interference is only justified when a punishment is shockingly disproportionate or based on a complete absence of evidence.

The petitioner, serving as an Executive Operations Officer with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), was removed from service following a disciplinary enquiry. He was charged with instructing a tanker crew to load fuel in excess of the permissible capacity at the Visakhapatnam Terminal. After the appellate authority affirmed the removal order, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the disciplinary action on grounds of victimization and a complete lack of substantive evidence against him.

The primary question before the court was whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent removal of the petitioner were vitiated by a lack of substantive evidence. The court was also called upon to determine the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning the reappreciation of evidence in departmental enquiries.

Evading Cross-Examination Bars 'No Evidence' Plea

The court noted that the petitioner was given ample and fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. However, he refused to cross-examine crucial management witnesses on the pretext that his request to inspect the site and the tanker was denied. The court emphasized that such a request should have been made after fully participating in the enquiry and demonstrating its necessity during the cross-examination process.

Limited Scope Of Judicial Review In Disciplinary Matters

Addressing the petitioner's argument regarding the poor quality of evidence, the court reiterated the settled principles of administrative law. Relying on judgments including The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v. Ajit Kumar Singh and The State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, the bench clarified that constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute the findings of a disciplinary authority. The court noted that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure fairness in the treatment of the delinquent employee and not to evaluate the ultimate merits of the decision.

"The constitutional Courts can certainly set aside the punishments awarded by the disciplinary authorities, subject to satisfaction that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed."

Interference Only If Punishment Is Shockingly Disproportionate

The bench further examined whether the punishment of removal from service was too harsh, a plea supported by the petitioner relying on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India. The court observed that it can certainly set aside punishments awarded by disciplinary authorities, but only subject to the satisfaction that the penalty imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed. Such extraordinary interference, the court held, would be necessary primarily in cases where there is absolutely no evidence on record.

Finding Of Guilt And Disciplinary Action Sustained

Concluding its analysis, the high court observed that the disciplinary authority had duly considered the available material on record to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Since the petitioner deliberately chose not to cross-examine material witnesses, he could not turn around and claim that the departmental action suffered from perversity or lack of evidence. Finding no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings, the court upheld the removal order.

Ultimately, the High Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge and refused to interfere with the orders passed by the HPCL management. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs, bringing closure to the service dispute.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2026