In departmental proceedings, charges must be substantiated by oral evidence; reliance solely on unproven documents violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

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

2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the notification contained in memo no. Nig./Sara(Path)-01-Vi.Ka.5-172/2014 2261(S) dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure-II) issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded the following punishments:

(i) Reduction in the lowest pay scale (ii) Recovery of an amount of Rs. 36,75,467/- from the salary of the petitioner towards the loss caused to the State Exchequer.

(b) For further issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing of the notification contained in memo no. Nig. Sara(Path)-01-Vi.Ka.-5- 172/2014 7648(S) dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure-13) issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated30.03.2015 has been upheld.

(c) Any other appropriate writ/writs be issued/order/order be passed/direction/directions be made as to this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Indrajit Sinha raises a very short issue in this case. He submits that the petitioner has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding but without any evidence. It is his contention that the petitioner has been found guilty without any oral evidence. He submits that the petitioner has been found guilty on the basis of some documents but those documents were not proved by any oral evidence. He also states that one of the document which has been relied upon by the respondents is a verification report in relation to bitumen invoice. This verification report, as per Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing but a preliminary inquiry report, which cannot be used in a departmental proceeding. On this ground he prays that the order dated 30.03.2015 and the appellate order dated 05.11.2015 needs to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the CBI has submitted a report, as per the said report, after investigation CBI found invoices to be fake and the petitioner has counter-signed those fake documents which suggests that the petitioner is involved in the entire occurrence. He further submits that the entire departmental proceeding is based on documents. When the documents suggests that the petitioner has committed misconduct, there is no necessity of any further proof. In this case, the reports and the documents clearly suggest that the petitioner has misused the invoice relating to bitumen and thus punishment has been inflicted. As per him this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence. The quantum of punishment commensurate with the proved charge thus this Court also should not interfere with the quantum and thus this writ application is liable to be dismissed.

5. The petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department at Jamtara. A First Information Report was registered and instituted by CBI being RC No.09(A) of 2010-R for allegedly committing offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 13 (2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

6. The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the ba