Non-examination of witness where some documents are to be proved will result in violation of Principle of Natural Justices, and the entire proceeding and inquiry stands vitiated.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. In this writ application a very short point has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner.

3. In this writ application, the petitioner challenges the order of punishment inflicted upon him on the conclusion of a departmental proceeding by punishment order is dated 29.9.2015 contained in Memo No. 6795(S). By the impugned order the petitioner has been reverted to the lowest stage of pay-scale and further there was a direction to recover the amount of loss from the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is absolutely bad as admittedly no witnesses were examined in support of the charge which was framed against the petitioner. He further submits that the recovery of loss which was ordered by the impugned order is vague as there is no quantification of amount of loss nor it has been mentioned in the impugned order as to what is the amount and in which proportion the same has to be recovered from the petitioner.

5. Counsel for the respondent submits that there was some documents on the basis of which the petitioner was proceeded against. He submits that there was criminal case pending against the petitioner and there is allegation that the petitioner has counter-signed fake bills, which makes his act an offence, thus the petitioner was proceeded against. He submits that since there were several documents to suggest that the petitioner was guilty, the inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. Second show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner along with inquiry report to which the petitioner replied, thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed. Thus, as per the State, there is no procedural irregularity and illegality in the case which warrants interference by this Court.

6. After hearing the parties, I find that the issue involved in the writ application lies in a very narrow compass. The ground taken by the petitioner is that though a departmental inquiry was conducted yet no witnesses were examined in a departmental proceeding and in absence of any witness a charge cannot be proved.

Thus the issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether in absence of any witness, the charge against the petitioner can be proved or not. I have gone through the entire document. The extract of the inquiry proceeding is brought on record which is at Annexure- 8 series to this writ application. Page 51 to 53 is the order-sheet which reflects the events which has taken place on the date of the inquiry. These pages clearly suggest that no witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Even no documents were produced before the inquiry officer. The inquiry officer thereafter concluded that petitioner is guilty of the charge. The entire inquiry report supports the guilt of the petitioner, without there being any evidence produced. Though there are allegations that the petitioner has counter-signed forged and fake bills but surprising those bills were also not exhibited or produced. The legal issue has been set as rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that a departmental proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature where the inquiry officer has to examine witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 14 in the Case 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 finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness w