In a departmental proceeding, documents relied upon by the department must be proved by oral evidence, and non-examination of witnesses to prove documents violates the principle of natural justice, leading to the vitiation of the entire proceeding and enquiry.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The sole ground taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Enquiry Officer has proved the guilt of the petitioner without any evidence as none proved the documents, which was relied by the Enquiry Officer.

Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, counsel for the petitioner, submits that those documents were produced by the Presenting Officer but no witness has been examined to prove the said documents. She further submits that in absence of production of witness to prove the document, the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated. She, in support her submissions, relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772.

3. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV, supporting the order of punishment, submits that the documents were supplied to the petitioner, who relied upon the said documents and took part in the entire departmental proceeding. After participating in the proceeding, now he cannot take the plea that the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated. He further submits that since the entire case is based on documentary evidence, the production of document is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner.

4. Considering the legal issue raised, it is not necessary to deal with the facts leading to the charge and the nature of allegation against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner being the Range Forest Officer was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter a Departmental Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry submitted a report and charge which was leveled against the petitioner was found to be proved. Thereafter, vide order No. 1776 dated 5.4.2016, the petitioner was punished. The punishment is of recovery of Rs. 1,61,050/- and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment also stood dismissed. The enquiry report has been brought on record vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition in which, there is a clear observation of the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the Presenting Officer had not produced any oral evidence. From the enquiry report, which is based on some documents, the guilt of the petitioner has been proved. No witness has been examined to prove the said documents, this is an admitted fact.

6. 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 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 was examined to prove the said documents. The mana