Dismissal after an ex parte inquiry and a one-line appellate order
Mahesh, a constable in the Rajasthan Police since 2012, was served a charge memo in 2023 alleging 47 days of unauthorized absence and insubordination. The enquiry officer examined two constable witnesses ex parte. Mahesh's request for copies of the complaint and the preliminary enquiry report was refused as 'confidential'. He was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses because they 'feared him'. The enquiry report held both charges proved. The Superintendent of Police, the appointing authority, imposed dismissal. Mahesh appealed to the Deputy Inspector General under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The DIG dismissed the appeal in one line: 'I find no reason to interfere.' Mahesh's revision before the Director General is pending. He files a writ petition under Article 226, alleging violation of natural justice and disproportionate punishment. The State raises preliminary objections: the alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the pending revision; disputed facts; and the limited scope of judicial review of punishment. Mahesh's service record shows no prior punishment; the absence was allegedly due to his father's illness, for which he had applied for leave but received no order.
1. Is the writ petition maintainable despite the alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and the pending revision?
Read the worked answer
Article 226 is a discretionary remedy; the existence of a statutory alternative remedy, here the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, is a self-imposed restriction, not an absolute bar. The court may entertain the petition where the order is without jurisdiction, violates natural justice, or is contrary to Article 311. The petitioner has a pending revision before the DG, but that does not destroy the writ jurisdiction. However, the court may refuse to interfere at this stage and direct him to exhaust the tribunal/revision, especially because disputed facts about leave are involved. The better course is to decide the natural justice challenge on the admitted inquiry record and, if it succeeds, set aside the dismissal and remit the matter. The preliminary objection on proportionality is also not absolute; punishment is reviewable if it is disproportionate or based on no evidence.
2. Did the disciplinary inquiry violate natural justice? Examine the denial of documents, the ex parte evidence, and the refusal of cross-examination.
Read the worked answer
The inquiry is vitiated by a breach of natural justice. Mahesh was denied copies of the complaint and the preliminary inquiry report, although they were relied on by the enquiry officer. He was not allowed to cross-examine the two witnesses, and the reason given - that they feared him - is not a lawful substitute for cross-examination. Ex parte evidence, without recorded reasons and without an opportunity to test it, cannot be the basis of a dismissal. The 'confidentiality' claim must be tested; a preliminary inquiry report is not automatically immune from disclosure. The appellate order is a one-line concurrence that does not show application of mind. The violation is not technical: it prejudiced his defence. The dismissal should be set aside and a fresh inquiry, if permissible, ordered.
3. If the charges are proved, is dismissal proportionate? What relief should the writ court grant?
Read the worked answer
Dismissal is the heaviest punishment in service law and must be proportionate. Mahesh had no prior punishment; the absence was attributed to his father's illness, and he says he applied for leave but received no order. The employer's case is that he remained absent for 47 days and was insubordinate. Even if the charges are proved, the court may hold that dismissal is disproportionate and substitute a lesser penalty, but judicial review of punishment is limited. The primary defect is the unfair inquiry, not merely the severity. Once the inquiry falls, the punishment cannot stand. The matter should go back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh inquiry with a proper opportunity, or, if that is no longer feasible, for reconsideration of the penalty. A writ court should not ordinarily decide the disputed facts about leave itself.