The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the removal of the Chairperson of Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kapurthala, whose defence was closed despite two listed witnesses’ statements not having been recorded.The bench ruled that a Permanent Lok Adalat Chairperson could not be removed by treating allegations as proved merely because they remained “unrebutted” when the person’s defence was closed without an effective opportunity to challenge the evidence.Reinforcing a significant procedural safeguard against arbitrary removal from statutory offices, the bench held that the burden of establishing the charges continued to rest on the authority and did not shift to the person facing the inquiry merely because an effective defence had not been submitted.“The burden to establish the guilt of the employee also remains upon the authority and does not disappear merely because the delinquent has not submitted or been permitted to submit an effective defence and the charge has remained ‘unrebutted’,” Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed.The bench added the principle was particularly applicable in the matter because the petitioner had not admitted the charges or declined to participate in the inquiry. On the contrary, she specifically disputed the allegations and sought material which she considered necessary for her defence. Her defence was closed at a stage when the record itself showed that the evidence of two listed witnesses had not been recorded.The ruling came in the petition filed way back in 2018 by Manju Rana challenging her removal. Justice Moudgil’s bench was told that the petitioner was appointed Chairperson for five years with effect from May 10, 2017. Complaints against her alleged that she had passed orders without the requisite quorum, issued verbal directions for demolition or removal of encroachments during spot visits, granted substantive relief at the interim stage and restrained NHAI from collecting toll at Ladhowal Toll Barrier, allegedly beyond the Permanent Lok Adalat’s territorial jurisdiction. Other allegations concerned traffic challans and the release of vehicles and documents.The Executive Chairman, Punjab State Legal Services Authority, formed an opinion that the allegations disclosed abuse of position under Rule 5(e) of the Permanent Lok Adalat (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and Other Persons) Rules, 2003, and ordered a regular inquiry. The substance of the allegations, documents and witnesses was supplied to the petitioner on May 17, 2018, with seven days to submit her defence.The petitioner denied the allegations and sought copies of the material relied upon. The statements of two witnesses were supplied on May 31, 2018. But the record showed that statements of two witnesses had not been recorded. The petitioner sought the remaining material and 15 days to file her defence. She specifically denied issuing directions for demolition, maintaining that the encroachments had been removed by NHAI officials under their statutory powers.“On June 11, 2018, the request for supply of documents was declined on the ground that the statements demanded had never been recorded. The request for further time was also rejected and the petitioner’s defence was closed,” Justice Moudgil noted.The Inquiry Officer thereafter treated the evidence as “unrebutted” and held the allegations proven. The Executive Chairman removed her from office the following day. The counsel for the petitioner, Rajinder Pal Singh Rana, submitted that the statements of two witnesses had not been recorded, the petitioner’sdefence was closed on June 11, 2018. As such, the subsequent finding that the evidence was “unrebutted” was totally unsustainable in eyes of law and principles of natural justice.“The principle of fair inquiry requires that a person facing a charge must know not merely the accusation but also the evidence by which it is sought to be established and must have a fair opportunity to meet such evidence,” Justice Moudgil added.Allowing the writ petition, Justice Moudgil ruled: “The order dated June 11, 2018, whereby the petitioner’s defence was closed, and the consequential order dated June 12, 2018, removing her from the office of Chairperson, Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Kapurthala, are hereby quashed. Since the petitioner’s tenure of five years from May 10, 2017, has already expired, no direction for reinstatement can be issued at this stage. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to have her claim for consequential monetary/service benefits, if any, considered by the competent authority in accordance with law”.