Tripura HC restores employee Anindita Bhoumik’s right to cross-examine witnesses in a disciplinary inquiry, modifying an earlier order and directing the inquiry committee to provide a fair opportunity, follow natural justice principles and complete proceedings within three months.
The Tripura High Court has restored the right of a Tripura Medical College employee to cross-examine witnesses in a disciplinary inquiry, holding that such a right arises only after the witnesses have completed their chief examination.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit modified an earlier order while hearing a writ appeal filed by Anindita Bhoumik. The order was passed on September 9, 2026. Bhoumik had challenged a portion of a Single Bench order that had denied her an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses examined by the respondents during the disciplinary proceedings.
The High Court examined the sequence of events leading to Bhoumik’s dismissal and observed that she had sought certain documents from the disciplinary inquiry committee on December 13, 2023. Her request was rejected the next day, on December 14. The respondents’ witnesses were subsequently examined on December 16, 2023.
The division bench noted that Bhoumik’s right to cross-examine the witnesses could arise only after their chief examination had been completed. According to the court, the fact that she had sought adjournments earlier could not be treated as a waiver of her right to cross-examine the witnesses because the relevant right came into existence only after the witnesses entered and completed their chief examination.
Bhoumik had challenged the December 14 order of the disciplinary inquiry committee on December 21 by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Notice in the matter was issued to the respondents on December 22.
However, while the writ petition was pending, the inquiry committee proceeded with the examination of the respondents’ witnesses on December 16 in Bhoumik’s absence. The court noted that she had requested an adjournment on the ground that the writ petition challenging the inquiry committee’s decision was pending.
The inquiry committee later passed an order on December 26, stating that Bhoumik had avoided participating in the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, on January 29, 2024, she was dismissed from service based on the report of the inquiry committee.
The Single Bench had earlier found the December 26 order to be unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. It had consequently set aside that order, the dismissal order and the July 12, 2024 order of the appellate authority that had confirmed her dismissal.
The Single Bench had remitted the matter to the disciplinary inquiry committee, directing it to provide Bhoumik an opportunity to adduce evidence and thereafter take a fresh and reasoned decision.
The division bench, however, held that the Single Bench was not correct in denying Bhoumik an opportunity to cross-examine the respondents’ witnesses on the reasoning that she had already received sufficient opportunities during the proceedings.
The bench specifically clarified that earlier adjournments sought by Bhoumik could not be counted against her for determining whether she had received sufficient opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses. The court emphasized that her right to cross-examine arose only after the chief examination of those witnesses had taken place.
As part of its directions, the High Court ordered the respondents to produce the witnesses before the inquiry committee on October 5, 2026. Bhoumik is to be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses on that date and on subsequent dates, as required.
After the cross-examination process is completed, Bhoumik will be provided a fresh opportunity to lead her evidence. The respondents will, in turn, be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses produced by her.
The inquiry committee has been directed to hear both sides and pass a fresh, reasoned order after completing the prescribed procedure. The High Court further directed that the entire exercise be completed within three months from the date the inquiry committee receives the court’s order.
| Also Read: TTAADC Election 2026 sees 10,889 nominations accepted after scrutiny |
The ruling underscores the importance of providing a proper opportunity of hearing in disciplinary proceedings and ensuring that procedural safeguards are not denied to an employee. The court’s directions will require the disciplinary inquiry against Bhoumik to be reconsidered after she is given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses concerned.
