P&H: Quashes order of Dismissal from service For Breach Of Natural Justice; Orders Full Benefits With 6% Interest

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 22 May 2026
Headnotes

Service -- Departmental inquiry — Violation of principles of natural justice — Denial of adjournment and opportunity to lead defence evidence — Inquiry in substance stood concluded  despite specific request for adjournment, witnesses were cross-examined by Inquiry Officer himself and no meaningful opportunity was thereafter afforded to adduce defence...

Service — Disciplinary proceedings — Quasi-judicial character and duty of fairness — Inquiry Officer must act fairly and independently and departmental proceedings must conform to principles of natural justice. (Para 7)

Service — Misconduct of unauthorized absence — Gravity of charge cannot dilute mandatory adherence to natural justice — Prejudice stands established where denial of reasonable opportunity affects the employee’s right of defence. (Para 10)

Service — Dismissal - Predetermination and undue haste — An earlier dismissal order passed prior to holding regular inquiry and later withdrawn on technical grounds created a reasonable apprehension that inquiry proceedings were conducted in undue haste and with a pre-determined mindset, fortifying the plea of denial...

 


Facts of the Case

P&H: Quashes order of Dismissal from service For Breach Of Natural Justice; Orders Full Benefits With 6% Interest

 

High Court has set aside dismissal of a Haryana government employee after finding that the departmental inquiry was conducted in breach of the principles of natural justice. Court allowed the writ petition and directed that he be granted all service and retiral benefits with arrears, carrying interest at 6% per annum from the date of dismissal.

The case concerned a challenge to the inquiry report  the dismissal order and the appellate order. The petitioner alleged that although he had initially proceeded on sanctioned leave and sought extension, he was neither informed of rejection nor given a fair chance during the inquiry. He pointed out that, his request for adjournment was declined in the absence of his counsel, the Inquiry Officer himself conducted cross-examination of witnesses, and no opportunity was thereafter afforded to lead defence evidence.

The State defended the action as a consequence of wilful absence from duty and maintained that a regular inquiry was conducted...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File