Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J
Naseem Ali, S/o Late Amin Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
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,
A departmental proceeding cannot result in punishment without oral evidence; reliance solely on an internal inquiry report is insufficient.
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.
In departmental proceedings, charges cannot be proved solely on documentary evidence without oral corroboration, upholding the principles of natural justice.
In departmental proceedings, charges must be substantiated by oral evidence; reliance solely on unproven documents violates principles of natural justice.
Departmental proceedings require oral or documentary evidence to support charges; without it, findings are invalid and violate principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.
Departmental misconduct charges require proof via witness examination on preponderance of probability; unproved complaint/arrest documents insufficient, warranting quashing of dismissal, with crimina....
Disciplinary proceedings vitiated without oral evidence proving documents, even ex-parte; inquiry officer must independently assess evidence sufficiency as quasi-judicial authority, upholding natural....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
