By Deepanjan Dey, Sr. General Manager – ER, Emami Ltd.
Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh (Civil Appeal No. 14724/2024) on 23rd April 2025 sent a strong message to employers: A๐ป ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ฏ๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐๐ต๐ผ๐๐ ๐ณ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ป๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฟโ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐, especially when that report forms the basis of the disciplinary decision.
In this case, a retired Assistant Engineer faced pension cuts and recovery based on a disciplinary enquiry where no witnesses were examined, no documents were proved, and ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ป๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ย ๐ณ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐ต๐ถ๐บ.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐โ๐ ๐ผ๐ฏ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป:
The Supreme Court held that the process was vitiated at the outset. Interestingly, the Court did not limit itself to the traditional test of ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ผ๐๐ฒ โ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒโ ๐ฑ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ผ ๐ป๐ผ๐ป-๐๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐น๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐. Instead, it emphasized that ๐ป๐ผ๐ป-๐ณ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฒ๐ป๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ณ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ด๐ต๐ ๐๐ผ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฑ, particularly when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority. This marks an evolution from earlier interpretations which often placed the burden of proving prejudice on the employee.
Also read – Employer cannot restrict trade union members from contesting their elections: Bom. HC
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐: ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐บ๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ป๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐. ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ป๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฎ๐ฟ
The judgment builds on two foundational rulings:
โข ๐๐ฐ๐ฉ๐ฅ. ๐๐ข๐ฎ๐ป๐ข๐ฏ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ ๐ท. ๐๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข (1991): the Court recognized that furnishing the enquiry report is part of a fair hearing. It applies to all establishment’s government and even private.
โข ๐. ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐ณ ๐ท. ๐๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ข (1993): a Constitution Bench held that if the employee is prejudiced due to non-supply of the report, the punishment cannot stand.
However, the present judgment pointed out that insisting on proof of prejudice in every case could defeat the very object of natural justice. The enquiry report forms a critical basis for the disciplinary decision, and denying access to it undermines the employeeโs ability to defend meaningfully.
๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐น ๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐:
The key takeaway is clear: procedural fairness is not a mere formalityโit is foundational.
Employers must ensure that ๐ฒ๐ป๐พ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐๐น๐ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐ณ๐๐ฟ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐พ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ฝ๐๐ป๐ถ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ป. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Shortcuts in disciplinary proceedings risk not just setting aside of punishment, but damage to organizational credibility and trust.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn,ย Twitter & Facebook
