-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“If You Differ from the Enquiry Officer, Speak Up—and Let the Employee Defend” - In a resounding affirmation of the principles of natural justice, the Bombay High Court at Goa quashed the dismissal of a Hindi Translator from the Mormugao Port Authority, holding that the disciplinary authority acted illegally by discarding the Enquiry Officer’s findings without recording tentative reasons or affording the employee an opportunity to respond.
Justice M.S. Jawalkar came down heavily on the employer for denying procedural fairness, stating:
“The Disciplinary Authority, if it intended to disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, ought to have recorded its tentative reasons for disagreement and thereafter should have provided an opportunity to the delinquent employee to represent against the tentative reasons, before recording any findings on the charges.”
The Court ruled that the dismissal of the petitioner was in clear violation of both statutory service regulations and the mandate of natural justice, as it involved a unilateral rejection of an enquiry report that had already exonerated the petitioner of wrongdoing.
“A Disciplinary Authority Cannot Play Judge and Executioner in Silence”
The petitioner, Ashish Deorao Chandekar, was appointed by the Mormugao Port Authority in 1998 and confirmed in service in 2003. Years later, his educational qualifications were questioned. A departmental enquiry was initiated in 2008, even though a prior chargesheet on the same subject in 2004 had already been disposed of with a minor penalty.
After a fresh round of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer recorded a clear finding that the charges were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority, without issuing any disagreement note or giving the petitioner a chance to defend himself, abruptly held him guilty and removed him from service by order dated 30 April 2011.
Justice Jawalkar found this approach fundamentally flawed: “There is a total breach of Regulation 11(26)(i)... If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it must tentatively record reasons and furnish them to the delinquent employee. No such opportunity was afforded in the present case.”
“Natural Justice Isn’t an Empty Ritual—It’s a Constitutional Mandate”
The Court held that denial of opportunity to the employee to rebut the disciplinary authority’s disagreement was not just a procedural lapse, but a constitutional violation under Article 311(2).
Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, Justice Jawalkar observed: “The Supreme Court has categorically held that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer, it must give the employee an opportunity to make a representation. This is not a matter of discretion, but of law.”
The Court also cited Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held: “Formation of opinion by the Disciplinary Authority should be tentative... and must not be finalised without first confronting the employee.”
In the present case, the Court found that the petitioner was dismissed solely on the basis of the disciplinary authority’s disagreement, without being told of the reasons or being allowed to respond.
“You Can’t Keep Issuing Chargesheets Forever on the Same Facts”
Justice Jawalkar further criticised the repetitive disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. Though he was issued a chargesheet in 2004 for the same issue and penalised with a minor punishment, MPT later issued fresh chargesheets in 2005 (which was withdrawn) and 2008 (which led to his removal).
“The petitioner has been victimised by the respondents... The chargesheet issued in 2008 is on the same subject matter and is illegal.”
The Court found that this repeated harassment, especially when the charges had already been adjudicated, was an abuse of disciplinary powers.
“Dismissal Illegal—Employee Entitled to Reinstatement and Back Wages”
The Court set aside the removal order dated 30.04.2011 and held that: “The disciplinary authority has acted in breach of both the Regulations and principles of natural justice.”
The Court directed that the petitioner be reinstated in service with continuity, and awarded 50% back wages from 01.05.2011 till reinstatement.
The Court also nullified the eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner from the staff quarters, stating: “The petitioner’s occupation of the premises... cannot be treated to be illegal.”
This judgment is a powerful reaffirmation of due process in employment law. The Bombay High Court has made it clear that disciplinary action cannot be taken behind an employee’s back, especially when the charges are already found to be unproven by an impartial Enquiry Officer. If an authority disagrees, it must say so, tentatively, and must give the employee a fair hearing.
As the Court rightly noted: “Denial of an opportunity to defend against tentative disagreement amounts to arbitrariness—natural justice is not a mere formality, but a guarantee.”
Date of Decision: 17 April 2025
