Back
2021 Supreme(Jhk) 170
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Ravikant Upadhayay – Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank, through its Managing Director – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 2970 of 2007
Decided On : 19-03-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a departmental enquiry, the lack of oral evidence can lead to the documents not being proved and could not have been taken into consideration to prove the charges against the delinquent.
Headnote:
No Oral Evidence - Departmental Enquiry - The court held that since no oral evidence was adduced during the enquiry, the documents have not been proved and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the delinquent. The court emphasized that an Inquiry Officer should act in a manner which should not be prejudiced to either of the parties and since no oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondent-bank, the documents have not been proved and could not have been proved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement and reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay, along with the direction that the petitioner shall not be eligible to draw any salary or allowance for the suspension period. The petitioner was also directed to show cause as to why gratuity payable to the petitioner will not be forfeited.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no oral evidence was adduced during the enquiry, and as a result, the documents have not been proved. The court concluded that the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, allowing the writ application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the punishment imposed on the petitioner and the subsequent appellate order, as well as the direction to show cause as to why gratuity payable to the petitioner will not be forfeited.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of oral evidence adduced during the enquiry, which led to the conclusion that the documents have not been proved and could not have been taken into consideration to prove the charges against the delinquent.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, allowing the writ application. The respondents were given the liberty to proceed against the petitioner, if so advised and if the law so permits.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 09.06.2005 passed by the respondent No. 5; whereby the petitioner has been awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement along with reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay and further ordered that the petitioner shall not be eligible to draw any salary or allowance for the suspension period. The petitioner has also assailed the appellate order dated 31.01.2006 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and order of punishment has been sustained. The petitioner has further prays for quashing the letter No. 320 dated 25.04.2007 issued by the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to show cause as to why gratuity payable to the petitioner will not be forfeited.
3. The relevant fact of the case is that the petitioner joined in the bank as Cashier on 15.10.1977 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager on 13.12.2001. In the year 2003, he was sent on deputation for a period of one month to join at I.S.L. Extension Counter, Jharia branch as the In-Charge of said branch was on leave under LTC and the petitioner took charge on 05.05.2003 and worked till 31.05.2003.
In the year 2004, the petitioner was suspended and received a charge-sheet along with statement of allegations giving details of irregularities, lapses, and omission alleged to have been committed by the petitioner during his deputation at ISL Extension Counter. Pursuant thereto; a departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner has been imposed punishment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds assailed the impugned order on the question that no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of management in order to prove the documents; as such this case has became case of no evidence.
5. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein at Para-10, it has been stated that no oral evidence were adduced during enquiry.
Para-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit is quoted herein-below:
“10........It is incorrect to say that the petitioner was not supplied with the list of documents and/or the documents enlisted. The petitioner was duly supplied with the relied upon documents in the second sitting dated 16.10.2004 of the departmental proceeding. It is also incorrect to say that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, who were produced during enquiry; rather fact of the matter is that no oral evidences were adduced during enquiry, so, no question of their cross-examination arose. The contention of the writ petitioner in this regard in Para-23 of the writ petition is inconsistent and self contradictory in itself. At the same time, the petitioner never requested for production of oral witnesses. The statements made in this regard in the main counter affidavit are adopted herein to avoid prolixity.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank could not dispute this fact that no oral evidence has been adduced. However, he submits that there are huge irregularities; as such the petitioner should not be left scot free.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and specific averments made in paragraph-10 of the supplementary counter affidavit quoted hereinabove, it clearly transpires that no oral evidence was adduced during enquiry. In this regard reference may be made to the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that since no oral evidence has been examined; the documents have not been proved and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the delinquent.
As a matter of fact, an Inquiry Officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He should not ac
