A departmental proceeding cannot result in punishment without oral evidence; reliance solely on an internal inquiry report is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The short point which falls for consideration before this Court is whether without any oral evidence and based on internal inquiry report, a person can be held guilty in a department proceeding and can be punished or not.

3. From the facts of this case, it is admitted that the petitioner was an Assistant Engineer. He was proceeded against for making some wrong estimate in respect of purchase of furniture. There is an allegation that the contract was awarded at a rate which is more than the scheduled rate. Further, there is an allegation that the specifications were not properly spelt out.

4. On the charges levelled against the petitioner, admittedly the chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report finding the petitioner guilty of the charge and thereafter, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and that of censure was passed against the petitioner.

5. The entire enquiry proceedings has been brought on record by the petitioner and the ordersheets of the departmental proceeding are before me. From the ordersheet, I find that not a single witness has been examined in this case to prove any document. The petitioner has been held guilty based on some vouchers, some documents and internal inquiry report.

6. The law is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others , reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 in para 14 held as follows:-

14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled 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 management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”

7. Further in para 30 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha , reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 the following has been held:-

“30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.”

8. In a recent judgment Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh , reported in 2024 INSC 873 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and has held that it is necessary to examine witness even to prove the documents.

9. So far as reliance on the internal enquiry report is concerned, the law is also settled. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another , reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 , it has been held that internal inquiry report cannot form the basis to punish a delinquent in the departmental proceeding. The same judgment has also been relied upon in Satyendra Singh (Supra)

10. Considering the well settled proposition of law, admittedly when no witness has been examined in the case, the petitioner cannot be held guilty only on th