Non-examination of witnesses to prove documents in a departmental proceeding violates the principle of natural justice and renders the entire proceeding and enquiry vitiated.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. This writ application can be disposed of on a very short question of law.

2. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner considering the departmental inquiry report, which is based on several documents, which were not exhibited as admittedly, no oral evidence was adduced by the Department. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, he submits that since no oral evidence has been adduced by the Department, the enquiry report and the punishment order is vitiated as those documents could not be said to be proved by the department in enquiry.

3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Central University of Jharkhand, submits that admittedly, the proceeding was ex-parte against the petitioner. In an ex-parte proceeding when in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not chose to appear before the authority, the petitioner now cannot challenge the enquiry report, which is against him. He submits that the documents were produced by the Presenting Officer and the same was taken note of by the Enquiry Officer and the order was passed. He submits that since the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, it will be deemed that he has no objection to all the materials and the documents produced before the Enquiry Officer.

4. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appears on behalf of the Intervener. He submits that after dismissal of the petitioner from service, the Central University has appointed him. Thus, he has interest in this litigation. He submits that the order is ex-parte against the petitioner. The documents were produced before the Presenting Officer and now the petitioner, after being removed from service, cannot take a ground that the proceeding is vitiated. He submits that if the petitioner had any objection, he could have appeared before the Enquiry Officer and objected the procedure, which the petitioner failed to do so.

5. Since the legal issue, involved in this case is very short, I am not inclined to deal with the nature of the allegation and other aspects.

6. The facts remains that the petitioner was charge sheeted and a departmental enquiry was set up. Before the Departmental Enquiry Officer, the petitioner did not appear therefore, the proceeding was ex-parte. Several documents were produced by the Presenting Officer, which were taken note of by the Enquiry Officer, which is evident from the enquiry report and has also been admitted by the parties. It is also admitted that the Presenting Officer has not adduced any oral evidence. This fact has also been noted by the Enquiry Officer in Para-14 of the enquiry report.

7. A departmental Enquiry Officer is an independent adjudicator. He is a quasi-judicial authority. The said Officer is not supposed to be a representative of the department or the Disciplinary Authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department. Even in the absence of the delinquent employee, the enquiry officer has to perform, his duty to find out independently as to whether charges are proved or not. If the case of the department is based on some documents, those documents also needs to be proved. Some witnesses must be produced by the department and must be examined to prove the documents relied by the department. A document which is not proved by oral evidence could not have been taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge is proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 14 of Roop Singh Negi (Supra) has held as under:

“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a find