[Service Law] Ex-Parte Inquiry Does Not Justify Returning Findings Without Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that conducting an ex parte inquiry does not grant the Inquiry Officer the freedom to return findings against an employee without any evidence.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma: “Ex Parte Inquiry does not mean that Inquiry Officer is free to return findings in favour of Department but against the employee without any evidence on record”.

Background Facts:

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar, served as a Superintendent Grade-II in the Directorate of Horticulture, Shimla. On 16.09.2017, he was suspended for allegedly violating Rules 3 and 8 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, by making statements in the media against the Government policies. These statements were reportedly published in Amar Ujala and The Tribune.

After his suspension, his headquarters were fixed at Mandi. However, he did not join due to an ailment and was subsequently served with a memorandum that contained the charges against him, along with all supporting documents and a list of witnesses to rely on.

Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying all allegations and requesting revocation of suspension and release of salary. Inquiries were initiated against him but proceeded ex parte, as the petitioner did not attend the hearings due to illness and prior family obligations.

Based on the Inquiry Report, the Director of Horticulture dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation, and the penalty was modified from dismissal of services to a reduction in pay for three years. It was also directed through an office order that the period of the petitioner's absence during the disciplinary proceedings would not count for salary or other benefits.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an original application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, seeking to quash the orders. Later, when the Tribunal was abolished, the petition was transferred to the High Court as CWPOA No. 6228 of 2020.

Findings:

The Court observed that the documents relied upon by the department were not supported by any witness. The witnesses examined during the inquiry did not affirmatively support the charges.

It further noted that the Additional Director and Deputy Director of Horticulture relied on a previous 2013 inquiry report and considered newspaper cuttings as circumstantial evidence. However, the 2013 report was never produced or even proved during the inquiry proceedings.

The Court observed that the inquiry was conducted in a hasty manner, as despite time being asked by the petitioner, due to an ailment, the inquiry was completed in his absence. Along with it, there was no evidence on record showing that the petitioner was properly informed of hearing dates.

Importantly, the Court held that even if it considered that the petitioner did not cooperate with the Inquiry, the department was still supposed to prove the charges by presenting cogent and reliable evidence for verification of the documents, especially the news articles, which were relied upon for framing the charges.

The Court noted no press reporter or news editor was called as a witness to prove that the news articles were based on the statement of the petitioner. Other documents relied upon to hold the petitioner guilty of misconduct were also not proved.

Although the inquiry was conducted ex parte, the Court noted that the petitioner had consistently denied charges both before and after the inquiry. Therefore, this was not a case where the petitioner did not dispute and deny the charges, but a case of clear and repeated denial. Hence, it was clearly the duty of the Authorities to place on record sufficient evidence to prove the documents based on which the charges were framed against the petitioner.

“Ex parte Inquiry does not mean that Inquiry Officer is free to return findings in favour of Department but against the employee without any evidence on record”

Thus, the Court held that the disciplinary authorities and the Inquiry Officer failed to perform their duties and did not adhere to the basic principle of Natural Justice and service norms. It emphasised that usually the Courts do not interfere with the departmental inquiries; however, in this case the Court stepped in as the findings were unreasonable and without any evidence.

Accordingly, it concluded that the Inquiry Officer's findings were not only unsupported by evidence but also unreasonable. Therefore, the Court quashed all the orders passed against the petitioner.

Case Name: Vinod Kumar v/s State of HP & others

Case No.: CWPOA No.6228 of 2020

Date of Decision: 18.06.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr.Balwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Ajeet Kumar Saklani, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order