Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:828 vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 25 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C ) No. 1776/2020
Reserved on: 12.03.2026
Pronounced on: 25.03.2026
Uploaded on: 25.03.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Gopal Krishan ..... Petitioner (s)
Through :- Mr. Abhinav Sharma Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Abhirash Sharma Adv.
V/s
UT of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr Mayank Gupta Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1 The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has
challenged order No.JMC/PS/COM/279 dated 20.05.2020 passed by
respondent No. 2, whereby he has been dismissed from service. Challenge has
also been thrown to the Departmental Enquiry proceedings that have been
conducted by respondent No. 2 holding him guilty of the charge of misconduct.
2. As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Sanitary
Inspector in Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC) in the year 1991 and was
promoted as Enforcement Inspector in the year 2016. According to the
petitioner, he was posted as Enforcement Inspector for Ward Nos. 51, 52, 53 &
54 of Jammu from 07.02.2019 to 31.07.2019.
3 A complaint dated 18.06.2019 came to be filed against the
petitioner by one Smt. Jyoti Devi, Corporator Ward No. 53, Trikuta Nagar,
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 1 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
Jammu, alleging that unauthorised construction is going on in Ward No. 53 and
no action is being taken by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid
complaint, an enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner and he was
directed to explain his position. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his
reply on 15.07.2019. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Assistant
Commissioner (Revenue), JMC who submitted his report dated 27.07.2019. On
the basis of the fact-finding report submitted by Assistant Commissioner
(Revenue), JMC, the petitioner was placed under suspension by virtue of order
dated 31.07.2019 issued by respondent No. 2, and the Secretary, JMC was
appointed as the Enquiry Officer to look into the allegations against the
petitioner. Accordingly, a fresh preliminary enquiry was conducted into the
allegations against the petitioner. The Secretary, JMC Jammu, after a detailed
enquiry, submitted his report and recommendations vide his communication
dated 12.12.2019.
4. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, by virtue of memorandum dated
17.02.2020, initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner in terms
of Rule 33 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1956). The article of charges and
the statement of imputations were served upon the petitioner, who was asked to
file his written statement of defence within 07 days. The petitioner is stated to
have submitted his written statement of defence on 22.02.2020 denying the
charges. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 appointed herself as the Enquiry Officer
and proceeded to hold the enquiry into the charges levelled against the
petitioner.
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 2 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
5 By virtue of notice dated 20.03.2020, the petitioner was directed
to appear before respondent No. 2 for recording his statement of defence.
During the course of enquiry, respondent No. 2 directed the Joint
Commissioner Administration, JMC (respondent No.4 herien), to submit a
factual report relating to the constructions raised between February 2019 to
July 2019. Accordingly, a report dated 20.04.2020 was submitted by
respondent No. 4. Respondent No.2, the Enquiry Officer rendered her report
dated 23.04.2020 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.
6 Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide notice dated 23.04.2020, asked
the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed penalty of dismissal from
service in terms of Rule 30 of the Rules of 1956 be not imposed upon him. The
petitioner submitted his reply to the notice vide his communication dated
29.04.2020, pleading that the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance
with the Rules and that he had not been permitted to cross-examine the
witnesses. Another notice dated 05.05.2020 was issued by respondent No. 2 to
the petitioner asking him to appear before her on 08.05.2020. The petitioner is
stated to have filed a written reply to the notice dated 05.05.2020. Thereafter,
respondent No. 2 proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 20.05.2020
whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
7. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground
that the same suffers from malice and personal bias. It has been contended that
respondent No. 2 has not appreciated the reply filed by the petitioner and has
proceeded to record findings without any substantial evidence. It has been
further contended that respondent No. 2 has not complied with the principles
of natural justice, as the petitioner was never allowed to cross-examine the
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 3 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
witnesses on the basis of whose statements respondent No. 2 had come to the
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty. It has been
contended that respondent No. 2 has not furnished copy of the record on the
basis of which findings have been recorded by the said respondent. It has also
been contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is
disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It has been contended that
no formal order for appointment of Enquiry Officer has been made and even
the Presenting Officer has not been appointed. It has been contended that the
reports relied upon by the Enquiry Officer are not substantiated by oral
statements of any witness. It has been contended that respondent No. 2, by
acting as the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry Officer, and by
taking active part in recording the statements of the departmental witnesses
and putting leading questions to them, had become an adjudicator as well as the
prosecutor while rendering the inquiry report and finally passing the order of
punishment against the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner, violates the
principles of natural justice.
8. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their
reply. In the reply, it has been submitted that a preliminary enquiry was
initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint dated 18.06.2019
received from the Councillor of Ward No. 53. It was alleged in the complaint
that the petitioner, who was posted as an Enforcement Inspector, was not
performing his duties properly and unauthorised construction work was going
on in the said ward. While the preliminary enquiry was being conducted into
the said complaint, another complaint was received against the petitioner from
one Sh. Surinder Singh leveling similar allegations.
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 4 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
9 It has been submitted that, as per the report of preliminary enquiry
dated 27.07.2019, various constructions had come up in Ward Nos. 53 and 17
without any building permission. On the basis of these findings, a fresh enquiry
was ordered and the Secretary, JMC was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The
said Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.12.2019 and, as per the said
report, the petitioner did not inform his superior officers for timely legal action
against illegal constructions that were coming up in the area of his jurisdiction.
It was reported that the petitioner had shown laxity and dereliction in
performing his duties.
10 Based on the findings of the enquiry Officer, a charge sheet was
issued to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 17.06.2020 along with the
article of charges and statement of imputations. It has been submitted that the
petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 21.02.2020 in response to
the charge sheet. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory by the
competent authority, as such, a detailed enquiry was initiated against the
petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, who designated itself as the Enquiry
Officer. It has been submitted that during the enquiry proceedings, the
petitioner was given adequate opportunity of hearing, and he filed a
comprehensive reply to the charges. It has been submitted that statements of as
many as eleven witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The
particulars of these witnesses find mention in the reply. According to the
respondents, the Enquiry Officer has not relied upon the statements of these
witnesses but has only relied upon the official record and the reports, while
arriving at the findings.
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 5 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
11 It has been further submitted that, during the disciplinary
proceedings, reports were sought from the Senior Town Planner and the Joint
Commissioner (A) to verify the claims made by the petitioner in his reply.
These reports were received on 20.04.2020. The entire available material,
including relevant records of the Enforcement Section, Building Section, and
Works Section, were scrutinised by the Enquiry Officer, and a threadbare
examination of the records was undertaken to arrive at a conclusion in respect
of the allegations relating to violations in raising constructions. The details
thereof have been given in the reply filed by the respondents. The Enquiry
Officer is stated to have analysed and assessed the timing of raising of illegal
constructions within the petitioner’s area of operation for the period from
07.02.2019 to 31.07.2019, by examining the labour schedule and the
corresponding pace of work. According to the respondents, these parameters
clearly established that the illegal constructions had taken place during the
tenure of the petitioner. It was found that illegal construction at as many as
three sites had been carried out, either partially or fully, during the petitioner’s
tenure. It has been contended that the petitioner was obliged to report such
violations promptly to enable timely action.
12 The Enquiry Officer concluded that the articles of charges framed
against the petitioner stand proved. Accordingly, enquiry report dated
23.04.2020 came to be framed by respondent No.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid
findings of the Enquiry Officer, notice in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules of 1956
was issued by respondent No.2 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority to the
petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from
service be not imposed upon him. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner is
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 6 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
stated to have appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 18.05.2020.
However, he could not produce any new documentary evidence in support of
his claim. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.05.2020 imposing
punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner came to be issued.
13. It has been contended that every opportunity was given to the
petitioner to produce the documents and the Enquiry Officer has supplied all
the documents to the petitioner. It has been contended that there has been no
breach of any statutory Rule while conducting the enquiry against the
petitioner. To lend support to their case, the respondents have also produced
the record relating to the enquiry.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of
the case.
15. For assailing the impugned order imposing penalty of dismissal
from service upon the petitioner and the impugned enquiry report, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a number of grounds.
However, he has laid much emphasis on the ground that respondent No. 2 has
acted as a prosecutor and an adjudicator in the present case and, as such, on
this ground alone the impugned enquiry proceedings are liable to be quashed. It
has also been contended that the petitioner has not been given the opportunity
of cross-examining the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the
course of the enquiry proceedings and that the entire material relied upon by
the Enquiry Officer has not been furnished to the petitioner. Thus, according to
the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned order imposing major punishment
upon the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 7 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
16. So far as the first ground projected by the petitioner is concerned,
it appears that vide memorandum dated 17.02.2020, respondent No. 2
formulated the charges against the petitioner and the same were received by the
petitioner on 17.02.2020. Vide his communication dated 21.02.2020, the
petitioner submitted his written statement of defence to the articles of charges
and statement of imputations. Thereafter, on 24.02.2020, respondent No. 2,
who is also the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the petitioner, issued order
dated 24.02.2020 appointing herself as the Enquiry Officer in order to conduct
a detailed enquiry into the charges in terms of the Rules of 1956. The petitioner
was further directed to submit his reply within a week’s time. The record shows
that respondent No. 2, who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority, after
appointing herself as the Enquiry Officer, has not passed any order for
appointment of a Presenting Officer.
17 The question that arises for determination is as to whether, in a
case where the Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and does not
appoint a Presenting Officer, the enquiry proceedings are vitiated.The said
issue has been a subject matter of discussion and determination before the
Supreme Court in a number of cases.
18 In State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2)
SCC 772, the Supreme Court has, while explaining the status of an Enquiry
Officer, held that an Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority and he has to
act as an independent adjudicator and that he is not a representative of the
department. Paras (28), (30) & (31) of the said judgment are relevant to the
context and the same are reproduced as under:
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 8 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
“28.Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the
position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed
to be a representative of the department disciplinary
Authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence
presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent
official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid
procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved, and could not
have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges
have been proved against the respondents.
30.When a department enquiry is conducted against the
Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The
enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind.
The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural
justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of
natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated
fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of
punishment including dismissal/removal from service.
31. In the case of Shaughnessy v. United States, 345 US 206
(1953) (Jackson J), a judge of the United States Supreme Court
has said “procedural fairness and regularity are of
the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can
be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied.”
19. Karnataka High Court in the case of Bharath Electronics Ltd vs.
K. Kasi, 1986 SCC Online Karnataka 30, had an occasion to consider the
issue as to whether non-appointment of a Presenting Officer would vitiate the
enquiry proceedings. Paras (14) and ( 15) of the said judgment are relevant to
the context and the same are reproduced as under:
“14. One other ground on which the domestic inquiry was held
invalid was that Presenting Officer was not appointed. This view
of the Tribunal is also patently untenable. There is no legal
compulsion that Presenting Officer should be appointed.
Therefore, the mere fact that the Presenting Officer was not
appointed is no ground to set aside the inquiry See : Gopalakrishna
Reddy v. State of Karnataka (ILR (Karnataka) 1980(1) 575). It is
true that in the absence of Presenting Officer if the InquiringWP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 9 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828Authority plays the role of the Presenting Officer, the inquiry
would be invalid and this aspect arises out of the next point raised
for the petitioner, which I shall consider immediately hereafter.
15. The third ground on which the Industrial Tribunal held that the
domestic inquiry was invalid was that the Inquiry Officer had
played the role of the Presenting Officer. The relevant part of the
findings reads :
“The Learned Counsel for the workman further contended that
the questions put by the Enquiry Officer to the Management’s
witnesses themselves suggest that he was biased and prejudiced
against the workman. There has been no explanation as to why
no Presenting Officer was appointed and as to why the Enquiry
Officer took upon himself the burden of putting questions to the
Management witnesses. The enquiry proceedings at Ext. A-6
disclose that after the cross-examination of the Management’s
witnesses by the defence, the Enquiry Officer has further put
certain questions by way of explanation, but from their nature
an inference arises that they are directed to fill in the lacuna.
The Learned Counsel for the Management contended that the
Enquiry Officer has followed the principles of natural justice
and that the domestic enquiry is quite valid. I am of the view
that the fact that the Enquiry Officer has himself taken up the
role of the Presenting Officer for the management goes to the
root of the matter and vitiates the enquiry,”
As far as position in law is concerned, it is common ground that
if the Inquiring Authority plays the role of a Prosecutor and
cross-examines defence witnesses or puts leading questions to
the prosecution witnesses clearly exposing a biased state of
mind, the inquiry would be opposed to principles of natural
justice. But the question for consideration in this case is :
Whether the Inquiry Officer did so ? It is also settled law that an
Inquiring Authority is entitled to put questions to the witnesses
for clarification wherever it becomes necessary and so long the
delinquent employee is permitted to cross-examine the
witnesses after the Inquiring Authority questions the witnesses,
the inquiry proceedings cannot be impeached as unfair. See :
Munchandani Electric and Radio Industries Ltd. v. Their
Workman”
20. Again, the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen, Lambababri
Tea Estate vs. Management,1965 SCC Online SC 5 considered the question
whether, in a case where the Enquiry Officer becomes a prosecutor, the enquiry
is vitiated. The Supreme Court observed thus:
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 10 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
“The inquiry which was held by the management on the first
charge was presided over by the manager himself. It was
conducted in the presence of the assistant manager and two others.
The enquiry was not correct in its procedure. The manager
recorded the statements, cross-examined the labourers who were
the offenders and made and recorded his own statements on facts
and questioned the offending labourers about the truth of his own
statements recorded by himself. The manager did not keep his
function as the enquiring officer distinct but became witness,
prosecutor and manager in turns. The record of the enquiry as a
result is staccato and unsatisfactory.”
21. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh has, in the case of
Union of India and othres vs. Naseem Siddiqui, 2004 SCC Online MP 678
summarized the fundamental principles of natural justice in the following
manner:
“(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not
act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a
Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non- appointment of
a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to
obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution
witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a
Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the
prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter
permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses
on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief
by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case,
or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant
with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts
suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee,
the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the
inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put
questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question
whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have
to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence
is let in and recorded in the inquiry.
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 11 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry
Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the
facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running
the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the
present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting
Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may”.
22. The aforesaid principles laid down by the Division Bench of
Madhya Pradesh High Court have been endorsed by the Supreme Court in its
judgment titled Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670.
In the said case, the Supreme Court held that when the statutory provisions do
not require appointment of a Presenting Officer, the non-appointment of a
Presenting Officer does not ipso facto vitiate the inquiry. It was further held
that if the Inquiry Officer starts acting in any other capacity and proceeds to act
in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee,
the principle of bias would come into play. The Supreme Court went on to hold
that there is no requirement of appointment of a Presenting Officer in each and
every case and when the statutory rules are silent with regard to the
applicability of any facet of principles of natural justice which are not
specifically excluded in the statutory scheme, they are not prohibited. It has
been further held that when there is no express exclusion of a particular
principle of natural justice, the said principle shall be applicable in a given case
to advance the cause of justice. The Court went on to hold that the question as
to whether an Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an
inquiry has acted as a prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be
decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case.
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 12 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
23 In light of the aforesaid principles, let us now analyse the facts of
the present case. As has already been stated, respondent No. 2 happens to be
the Disciplinary Authority and she has also acted as an Inquiry Officer. There
is no prohibition in Rule 34 of the Rules of 1956 for appointment of the
Disciplinary Authority as the Inquiry Officer. Clause (4) of Rule 33 of the
Rules of 1956 vests power with the Competent Authority to inquire into the
charges itself or to appoint an Inquiry Officer for the purpose. Therefore, per se
there is nothing wrong in the action of respondent No. 2 in appointing herself
as the Enquiry Officer. The Rules of 1956 also do not provide for appointment
of a Presenting Officer, but there is no prohibition contained in the said Rules
regarding appointment of a Presenting Officer. Therefore, the issue as to
whether, by acting as a Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer, the inquiry proceedings in the present case would get
vitiated becomes a question of fact which has to be decided having regard to
the manner in which the inquiry proceedings have been conducted in the
present case.
24 In the above context, if we have a look at the record of the inquiry,
it appears that during the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, respondent
No. 2 has sought reports from the Senior Town Planner and Joint
Commissioner (A). It has been done to collect evidence against the petitioner.
Similarly, respondent No. 2, while conducting the inquiry, has recorded the
statements of as many as eleven witnesses, out of whom at least two have
deposed against the petitioner. These witnesses have also produced
photographs and documents to substantiate their statements. The statements of
these witnesses have been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer while recording
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 13 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
the findings against the petitioner. The record further shows that the statements
of these witnesses were recorded behind the back of the petitioner and he was
not even afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It also
appears that the copies of the reports obtained by the Inquiry Officer from the
Senior Town Planner and the Joint Commissioner were not furnished to the
petitioner.
25 The aforesaid circumstances clearly go on to show that respondent
No. 2, while acting as the Disciplinary Authority, Inquiry Officer and the
prosecutor rolled into one, has approached the whole issue with a premeditated
mind to somehow implicate the petitioner. The manner in which the
proceedings have been conducted by respondent No. 2 clearly reflects a
reasonable apprehension of bias against the petitioner.
26 It has to be kept in mind that while holding disciplinary
proceedings against an employee and imposing punishment upon him after
finding him guilty of misconduct, though technical rules of the Code of Civil
Procedure and the Evidence Act do not apply, yet the principles of natural
justice are required to be observed strictly. Therefore, the inquiry is required to
be conducted fairly and reasonably. It is a cardinal principle of natural justice
that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. The Supreme Court has, in the
case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others
(1985) 4 SCC 417, held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or
she has dealt with in any capacity. The failure to observe this principle creates
an apprehension of bias on the part of the said person. Therefore, the law
requires that a person should not decide a case in which he is interested. The
question is not whether the person is actually biased, but whether the
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 14 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.
27 In the present case, as already stated, the circumstances clearly go
on to show that there is a reasonable apprehension that the manner in which
respondent No. 2 has acted in the present case by donning three hats, viz., the
Disciplinary Authority, the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, the
decks were heavily loaded against the petitioner even before imposing
punishment upon him. The enquiry proceedings and the impugned report of
enquiry rendered by respondent No.2, as such, get vitiated.
28 The second ground urged by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner also appears to be well founded. The petitioner was subjected to a
regular departmental inquiry and, therefore, Rule 33 of the Rules of 1956 was
required to be followed. The said Rule clearly stipulates that the person
charged is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person
and to have such witnesses called as he may wish. In the present case, the
Inquiry Officer has recorded the statements of as many as eleven witnesses, out
of whom two have deposed against the petitioner and their statements have
been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. These witnesses have also placed on
record of the enquiry the photographs and documents. The record shows that
the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
and the photographs/documents produced by these witnesses have not been
furnished to him. The record also bears testimony to the fact that the petitioner
has not been furnished copies of the reports of the various officers that were
obtained by the Inquiry Officer during the course of the inquiry, nor has the
petitioner been given an opportunity of producing his witnesses after the
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 15 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
closure of departmental evidence. In fact, the record of the enquiry produced
before the Court shows that the Enquiry Officer has not even recorded the
minutes of the enquiry proceedings from which one could gather as to in what
manner the proceedings have been conducted. The mandate of Rule 33 of the
Rules of 1956 has been completely violated by the Inquiry Officer while
conducting the inquiry. On this ground also, the inquiry proceedings are
vitiated.
29 Once the impugned inquiry proceedings against the petitioner
stand vitiated for the reasons stated hereinbefore, the impugned order imposing
penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner cannot sustain. The same,
therefore, deserves to be quashed.
30 Ordinarily, the respondents ought to have been granted an
opportunity of removing the defects in the conduct of departmental
proceedings by allowing them to hold a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, but
during the pendency of the present petition, a significant development has
taken place, which is that the petitioner has superannuated from service in the
month of October 2024. Once the relationship of an employee and employer
between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation has ceased to exist, the
inquiry proceedings cannot be initiated/continued afresh against him. It is
pertinent to mention here that the applicable rules do not permit initiation or
continuation of enquiry proceedings against the petitioner upon his
superannuation from service. The charges that have been levelled against the
petitioner, relate to dereliction in duty in reporting illegal constructions raised
in his area of posting. Thus, even Article 168-A CSR is not attracted to the
present case because it is not the case of the respondents that the action of the
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 16 of 17
2026:JKLHC-JMU:828
petitioner has resulted in any financial loss to the respondent-Corporation.
Thus, at this stage, a fresh inquiry cannot be initiated or continued against the
petitioner in any circumstances whatsoever.
31 In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, the impugned
inquiry proceedings and the impugned order dated 20.05.2020 issued by
respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, are
set aside. The respondents are directed to process the case of the petitioner for
grant of pension and consequential benefits as per rules by treating him in
service up to the date of his superannuation.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Jammu
25.03.2026
Naresh Secy
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Whether the order is speaking: Yes
WP(C) No. 1776/2020 Page 17 of 17
