The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the non-supply of an inquiry report to a delinquent employee does not automatically vitiate disciplinary proceedings if the guilt is established from the record itself and no prejudice is caused. The Court dismissed a Special Appeal challenging the termination of a storekeeper found guilty of “high level embezzlement” involving over ₹1.86 crore.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, upheld the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent judgment of the Learned Single Judge, observing that even if the inquiry report had been supplied, it would have had no material bearing on the finding of guilt which was proved by documentary evidence.
Case Background
The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Malviya, was posted as a storekeeper at the Sahupuri Godown, District Varanasi, under the U.P. Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL). The dispute arose following an inspection where significant quantities of tower parts and other goods were found missing.
According to the judgment, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on June 23, 1997, after 64 M.T. of river crossing tower parts valuing ₹19.50 lacs were found missing. Subsequent physical verification between July and September 1997 revealed further shortages of goods valued at ₹1,49,62,868/- and T. & D. goods worth ₹7,23,799/-.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the appellant was suspended. A chargesheet was issued on December 11, 1997. The Inquiry Officer, in a report dated September 22, 1999, found the appellant guilty of the charges. Consequently, on March 23, 2000, the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Transmission Circle, Allahabad, passed an order dismissing the appellant from service and directing the recovery of ₹186.603 lacs.
The appellant challenged this dismissal in a writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21356 of 2000), which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on July 23, 2012. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present Special Appeal (No. 1470 of 2012).
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellant, Sri Siddharth Khare, argued that the inquiry report was never served to the appellant before the final termination order was passed, despite a request made in the reply to the show-cause notice. He contended that the supply of the inquiry report is a mandatory requirement under the law, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others (1993).
The appellant also claimed that he was forced to sign the invoices acknowledging receipt of the goods by the then Executive Engineer, Sri K.P. Tripathi, and that the goods were, in fact, never received at the Sahupuri godown.
Counsel for the Respondents, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, argued that the charges were established from the record itself. He submitted that the appellant had signed the invoices acknowledging receipt of the goods. It was argued that the appellant failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy of appeal and could not prove that any prejudice was caused due to the non-supply of the inquiry report.
The respondents further submitted that the inquiry report was made available to the appellant through the counter affidavit filed during the writ proceedings, yet the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not effectively questioned.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court carefully examined the principles laid down in B. Karunakar (1993) regarding the supply of inquiry reports. The Bench noted that while the denial of an inquiry report is a breach of principles of natural justice, the Court must consider whether such denial caused prejudice to the employee.
The Bench distinguished the present case from the recent Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Prakash Singh (2025), noting that in Ram Prakash Singh, the inquiry report was never brought on record. In contrast, in the present case, the inquiry report was annexed to the counter affidavit before the Learned Single Judge.
Addressing the appellant’s defense regarding the missing goods, the Court observed:
“The plea of the appellant that without supplying the aforesaid goods in the Store he had to give the receipt of the same on the direction of the then Executive Engineer does not inspire confidence and the same is nothing but a lame excuse.”
The Court found that the appellant had categorically acknowledged the receipt of the goods, which were later found missing. The Judges held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding the guilt of the appellant could not be questioned merely on the ground of non-supply of the report, especially when the appellant failed to challenge the findings effectively before the Writ Court.
In its conclusion, the Bench stated:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case and high level embezzlement involved, this Court finds that even if the inquiry report, would have been supplied to the appellant, it would had no material bearing regarding the finding of the guilt arrived at by the disciplinary authority.”
Decision
The Division Bench held that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge was based on “cogent and justifiable reasons” and found no “palpable infirmities or perversities” warranting interference.
Accordingly, the Special Appeal was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the appellant and the recovery order.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and Others
- Case No.: Special Appeal No. 1470 of 2012
- Bench: Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
