Departmental Charge-Sheet Not A Plaint; Evasive Reply Given To It Does Not Amount To Admission: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging dismissal from service and recovery imposed upon an employee of a cooperative federation, which had been upheld by the High Court.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra observed: “a departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint that an evasive reply thereto may amount to an admission. In a departmental enquiry, unless the charge is admitted, the burden to prove the charge lies on the employer/ department.”

Advocate Rajiv Srivastava appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Gaurav Dhingra appeared for the respondents.

Background

The appellant was employed with a cooperative federation and was posted as in charge of a procurement centre. A charge sheet was issued alleging irregularities in procurement and short delivery of stock. During the pendency of the enquiry, a supplementary charge-sheet was also issued alleging embezzlement of funds.

The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service along with recovery of alleged losses. The appellant challenged the same before the High Court, contending that no oral enquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and the proceedings violated principles of natural justice.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that opportunity had been afforded and that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the nature of disciplinary proceedings and the requirements of a valid enquiry under service rules governing cooperative societies. It noted that the appellant had denied the charges in his replies to the charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet.

Rejecting the respondent’s contention that the appellant’s reply amounted to admission, the Court held that there was no categorical admission of guilt. It was observed that even the High Court had recorded that the charges were denied.

The Court categorically held that “a departmental charge-sheet is not a plaint” and therefore principles applicable to pleadings in civil suits cannot be imported into disciplinary proceedings. It clarified that an evasive or insufficient reply cannot be treated as an admission of charges.

The Court reiterated that in disciplinary proceedings, the burden to prove charges lies on the employer unless there is a clear admission. It held that in the absence of such admission, the employer is required to lead evidence to substantiate the charges.

Referring to the applicable service regulations, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings must conform to principles of natural justice, including opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead defence evidence.

Relying on precedents including Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen (1963) and State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh (2008), as followed in Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana (2016), the Court reiterated that a valid enquiry requires examination of witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination.

The Court observed that even where the case is based on documentary evidence, such documents must be proved through witnesses unless admitted by the delinquent employee.

The Court noted that it was admitted by the employer that no witness was examined in the enquiry. It held that despite the denial of charges, the employer failed to lead any evidence, thereby violating the mandatory requirements of a disciplinary enquiry.

The Court concluded: “the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry, even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Therefore, in our view, the enquiry stood vitiated. Once the enquiry stood vitiated, the consequential order of punishment/ recovery cannot be sustained”.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary enquiry stood vitiated for non-compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.

Accordingly, the order of dismissal and recovery was set aside. The Court granted liberty to the employer to conduct a de novo enquiry in accordance with the law within a stipulated time.

Cause Title: Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 305)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Rajiv Srivastava with Amita Srivastava, Arpit Shukla, Garima Srivastava, Daisy Hannah, Gargi Srivastava

Respondents: Advocates Gaurav Dhingra; Sunny Choudhary

Click here to read/download Judgment