Delinquent's Right To Receive Enquiry Report Must Be Read Into Every Statute Even If Not Explicitly Stated: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that a delinquent's right to receive the enquiry report is considered an essential part of a reasonable opportunity to be extended to them and a refusal to furnish the report amounts to a denial of their right to defend themselves in the disciplinary proceedings. 

A Division Bench of Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P also held that even if such a right is not explicitly stated in the statute, being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, it must be read into every statute.

"The right to receive the report is considered as the essential part of reasonable opportunity to be extended to the person affected by the report and a refusal to furnish the report amounts to denial of the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings. Even if such right is not explicitly stated in the regulations or statute, that right being a fundamental and essential part of the natural justice, must be read into every regulation or rules."

The petitioner was working as the Inspector of Police when a departmental enquiry was initiated against him for allegedly manhandling and registering a false case against one K.G. Suresh Babu. As such, a penalty was imposed on him whereby three increments were barred with a cumulative effect. 

However, the petitioner denied the charges claiming that Babu had to be arrested and taken to the police station after his car was found parked near Raj Bhavan on the day when the Prime Minister was camping there.

It was alleged that the Enquiry Officer being biased, submitted a report against the petitioner which was accepted by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary proceedings were finalised and the petitioner filed a statutory review petition before the Government against the same, but this was rejected. 

Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal arguing that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him after it was drawn up and that it was given only after a provisional decision was taken to impose a penalty on him. However, his application was dismissed relying on Rule 17 (i) (b) of the Kerala Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules.

Accordingly, he moved the High Court. 

Advocate S.P Aravindakshan Pillay appearing for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and decided to punish him before giving a copy or obtaining his remarks which deprived him of his right to point out the vitiating factors of the report and to avoid punishment on the basis of such a report.

It was also argued that the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority not being the same, a copy of the report ought to have been given to the delinquent before the disciplinary authority decided on the further course of action to be taken on the report.

Upon perusing the show cause notice, the Court noted that an explanation was sought from the petitioner as if the enquiry report was accepted in full, concurring with the findings of the guilt rendered in it, and the opportunity was given only to show cause as to why penalty shall not be imposed. 

"It is crystal clear that the enquiry report was not served on the appellant before or an opportunity to plead why the findings in the enquiry report should not be accepted by the disciplinary authority or on the quantum of punishment was offered to the petitioner. This action flies in the face of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench."

The Bench held that giving access to the enquiry report after the Government accepted the findings in the same and provisionally decided to impose a penalty is a violation of the principles of natural justice. This could not be condoned, particularly because the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority in this case were not one and the same.

The Court also held that the State's argument that there is no specific provision in the Rules to give the enquiry report at the stage of drawing up to the delinquent could be accepted. 

"There is nothing in the rules aforesaid which excludes the operation of the principle of natural justice entitling the delinquent to be served with a copy of the enquiry report before accepting the report or proposing a punishment. It is trite that the principles of natural justice must be read into the unoccupied interstices of the statute/rules or regulations unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary."

As such, the Bench set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the Original Petition. 

The enquiry proceedings were directed to start afresh from the stage of drawing up the enquiry report and by giving a copy of the said report to the delinquent to offer his explanation of the findings and to be completed within six months.

Case Title: Jayachandran V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 296

Click Here To Read/Download The Order