30th June retirees case - Supreme Court passed comments- noncompliance costs as well as interest may be imposed.

 111. Application of the principle features of natural justice in relation to departmental proceedings are -

(a) Issuance of charge sheet :

(b) Opportunity to file defence

(c) Disclosure of documents/materials

(d) Inspection of documents

(e) Production of witnesses

(f) Opportunity of Cross-Examination

(g) Legal representation

(h) Notice of enquiry

(i) Adjournment

Broadly speaking, requirements of the principles shall stand satisfied in the following situations.

112.              The charge sheet is issued either by the disciplinary authority itself or any authority so authorised by the rules (State of M. P. v. Shardul Singh, (1970) SCC 108] or where there are no rules by a superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority of the employee (P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. C&AG, AIR 1993 SC 1321].

113.              The disciplinary authority should be impartial and must not have any personal cause of bias against him. An authority cannot take the proceedings if the matter concerns himself [Arjun Chobey v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1356], or when he is a witness in the case (ibid., State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86].

114.              A person who is biased against the charged employee is not eligible to hold the inquiry [Tilak Chand v. Kamla Prasad Shukla, (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 21 (25)]. On the same principle a complainant cannot be a member of the inquiry committee (Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, (1993)4 SCC 10). Similarly, a person who is a witness in a case cannot function as an inquiring authority too [State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86). The inquiry also gets vitiated if it is held by an officer who has pre-judged the issues [Narayana Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1958 A.P. 636).

115.              The charges must not be vague [Transport Commr. v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy, (1995)1 SCC 332]. It should contain full particulars of the charge which the accused employee is required to explain. The allegations are concrete and specific and nothing is left out which the accused employee should know to make out an effective defence [Surath Chandra v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752).