Administrative enquiries and investigations
I. Meaning of Administrative Enquiries and Investigations
Administrative enquiries and investigations are processes conducted by government or administrative authorities to collect facts, examine complaints, ensure compliance with laws, or detect violations before making administrative or disciplinary decisions.
These are fact-finding mechanisms, usually preliminary to administrative adjudication, and are vital for:
Maintaining discipline in public services
Detecting corruption, negligence, or misconduct
Ensuring regulatory compliance (e.g., in environmental, corporate, tax sectors)
Unlike court trials, these are inquisitorial, not adversarial, and are often internal procedures within the administration.
II. Characteristics of Administrative Enquiries & Investigations
Not judicial proceedings, but must follow fairness.
Conducted without formal rules of evidence, but based on reason and logic.
Often confidential and internal.
May lead to disciplinary action, but not punishment directly unless adjudicated.
Must follow natural justice if the outcome affects rights or reputation.
III. Scope of Administrative Enquiries
Departmental enquiries against government employees.
Regulatory investigations (SEBI, TRAI, RBI, etc.)
Anti-corruption enquiries (Vigilance/CBI probes).
Tax and customs enquiries.
Environmental or industrial compliance investigations.
IV. Principles Governing Administrative Enquiries
Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard)
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause)
Speaking orders (reasoned decisions)
Bias-free investigation
V. Key Case Laws on Administrative Enquiries and Investigations
Below are six important cases, each explaining some crucial aspect of administrative enquiries:
1. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416)
Facts:
Several government servants were dismissed from service without departmental enquiry due to involvement in strikes and misconduct during emergency provisions under Article 311(2).
Issue:
Is dismissal without enquiry valid?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that under Article 311(2) proviso (b), in cases where holding an enquiry is not reasonably practicable, the government can dismiss without enquiry. However, the reasons must be recorded and justifiable.
Importance:
Exception to natural justice allowed only in rare cases.
Administrative enquiries can be skipped only when justified with reasons.
Natural justice is the rule, not the exception.
2. Khem Chand v. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300)
Facts:
Khem Chand, a government servant, was dismissed without giving full opportunity to defend.
Issue:
What are the minimum requirements for a valid administrative enquiry under Article 311?
Held:
The Court laid down that before dismissing a public servant, he must be:
Informed of charges,
Given opportunity to refute them,
Allowed to cross-examine witnesses,
Permitted to present his case.
Importance:
Fundamental case on fair departmental enquiry.
Set procedural standards for administrative investigations involving disciplinary actions.
3. A.N. D’Silva v. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 1130)
Facts:
An employee was found guilty in a departmental enquiry but argued that the enquiry officer was biased.
Issue:
Does bias invalidate an administrative enquiry?
Held:
Yes, even the likelihood of bias (not necessarily proven bias) invalidates the fairness of an enquiry.
Importance:
Established the principle that impartiality is crucial in administrative enquiries.
Reinforced the doctrine of bias in administrative law.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Sharif (AIR 1982 SC 937)
Facts:
An employee was dismissed on the basis of an enquiry, but he claimed he was not given proper opportunity to defend.
Issue:
Is a dismissal valid if the employee is not given a reasonable opportunity during the enquiry?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that mere formal opportunity is not enough. If the enquiry is not meaningful, the dismissal is invalid.
Importance:
Emphasized substantive fairness in administrative enquiries.
Procedural justice must be real and not illusory.
5. State of Orissa v. Murlidhar Jena (AIR 1963 SC 404)
Facts:
The delinquent officer was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report before punishment.
Issue:
Is it mandatory to supply the enquiry report before imposing penalty?
Held:
Yes. Non-supply of the report violates natural justice, as the officer must know what findings are made against him to effectively defend.
Importance:
Strengthened rights of the accused in departmental enquiries.
Later followed in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991).
6. Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 84
Facts:
Employee was punished without being given a copy of the enquiry officer’s report.
Issue:
Does non-supply of the enquiry report before disciplinary action violate principles of natural justice?
Held:
Yes. The delinquent must be given a chance to make a representation against the findings of the enquiry officer before a final decision is made.
Importance:
Confirmed that natural justice extends to all stages of administrative proceedings, not just the initial hearing.
Required transparency and fairness even at the penalty stage.
VI. Conclusion
Administrative enquiries and investigations, though non-judicial, carry significant consequences, especially in disciplinary or regulatory contexts. The courts have consistently held that:
Natural justice is central to these enquiries,
Procedural fairness must be ensured at all stages,
Authorities must act without bias and with reasoned decisions.
These cases collectively reinforce the idea that administrative efficiency cannot override individual rights, and even when dealing with government employees or regulatory breaches, justice must be done and seen to be done.
RELATED Blog
0 comments