K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge approving the order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure- 8 of the writ petition) which withheld 50% of the pension of the appellant and also the salary for the suspension period, which was passed by Annexure-9 (of the writ petition) dated 01.02.2016.

2. The appellant was proceeded with through Annexure-1 (of the writ petition) charge-sheet on various allegations. The allegations were of the appellant being a member of patrolling party in the conduct of elections; having changed the route while bringing back sixteen ballot boxes to the strong room, causing damage due to murky water having entered the ballot boxes; which destruction of ballot papers was also not disclosed to the higher authorities. The above action resulted in a re-polling.

3. It was also alleged that the appellant was incharge of various schemes of the sub-divisions at Madhepura, Murliganj and Udaikishunganj, wherein there was no updating of status report which created difficulty in reconciling the accounts.

4. The enquiry report found that there were 131 toilets reported as completed by the appellant as reported by the Executive Engineer-cum-Member Secretary, District Water and Sanitation Committee, Madhepura which would reduce the amount of advance given in the name of the appellant. The further findings are with respect to lakhs of rupees having been paid to the appellant by the then Executive Engineer without following the rules regulating such advances and no reconciliation of accounts having been made.

5. The finding is anomalous insofar as no specific amount having been spoken of and total absence of evidence regarding the advances granted to the appellant; produced before the Enquiry Officer.

6. Again, it was reported that there is a pending total of Rs. 98,440/- received from the UNICEF, the notification letter of which amount is stated to be not available in the divisional office. It was also stated that the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Madhepura has in a communication stated that the advance cheque of Rs. 37,440/- was not encashed in time and the cheque was not made available to the office. The Enquiry Officer found dereliction of duty and negligence and assessed a net amount Rs. 61,000/- (98,440-37,440) as due from the appellant.

7. We are unable to uphold the findings in the report, especially since the Enquiry Officer itself found that there is no document indicating the amount of Rs. 98,440/- as having been received from the appellant. As far as Rs. 37,440 is concerned, a communication from the Executive Engineer was referred to, without the Executive Engineer being examined.

8. There are also statements made of the appellant while in-charge of Sub-Divisional Store, Udakishunganj having not submitted the site accounts on which allegation it is stated that there is a possibility of wastage of government materials. Again, there is no person examined in the Enquiry to substantiate the said allegation.

9. Admittedly, none was examined at the enquiry nor were any documents marked. Merely based on the allegations, Enquiry Officer found the misconducts alleged to be proved.

10. The Superintendent Engineer’s order based on the enquiry finding also does not refer to any evidence having been adduced.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Vikash Kumar; 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 5879. The learned Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that there was clear defalcation of amounts and huge loss was caused to the Government. It is prayed that the Government may be given another opportunity to adduce evidence properly.

12. Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570 categorically held that mere production of documents without examination of witnesses would not be valid evidence.

13. In the present case, we also do not see any documents marked in the enquiry and no witnesses were examined. If a communication and its contents w