Departmental proceedings require oral or documentary evidence to support charges; without it, findings are invalid and violate principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents, at length.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order as contained in Memo No.5/Aarop-1-555/2014 Ka-7103/Ranchi dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby in a Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty on the basis of the impugned enquiry report and he was imposed with a punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension, under Rule 43 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES , 2000.

3. The petitioner was the Settlement Officer at the relevant point of time.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had appointed 27 persons as “Safai Moharir” without following the appointment process and without any advertisement.

5. Since, charge was framed against the petitioner before his superannuation, the enquiry continued and ultimately the petitioner was punished by invoking Rule 43 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES , 2000.

6. After going through the enquiry report which has been annexed with the counter affidavit, I find that the respondents have found the allegation levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Surprisingly, in the entire enquiry report, there is no whisper about any oral or documentary evidence. The Enquiry Officer himself came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved thus he submitted the enquiry report.

7. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled in the charge-sheet must be proved by documentary or oral evidence. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The documents, if any, which is relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and contents thereof also needs to be proved by an oral evidence. In absence of any oral evidence, the document, based on which the delinquent employee is punished, cannot be taken as an evidence. Though, the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable so far as departmental proceeding is concerned but when a document needs to be looked into, it has to be proved by an oral evidence. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not sufficient to prove the charge in a departmental proceeding. The document itself cannot be treated to be an evidence until and unless the same is proved.

8. The aforesaid principle has been led down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 The said proposition has been reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 wherein the Enquiry Officer relied upon a document substantiating the irregular transaction, which constituted the basis of enquiry. In the said case, no witnesses were examined to prove the said document in order to establish the charge against the delinquent employee. Recording the aforesaid fact in para-13 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of major punishment is mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to para-14 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). It is necessary to quote para-14, 15 and 19 of the judgment of Roop Singh Negi (supra), which are as hereunder:-

“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi j