Disciplinary proceedings vitiated without oral evidence proving documents, even ex-parte; inquiry officer must independently assess evidence sufficiency as quasi-judicial authority, upholding natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

I.A. No. 3269 of 2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This interlocutory application seeks condonation of delay of 356 days in instituting the appeal.

3. We have perused the averments set out in interlocutory application and we are satisfied that the cause shown is sufficient.

4. Accordingly, we condone the delay and disposed of I.A. No. 3269 of 2023.

L.P.A. No. 159 of 2023

5. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard on merit.

6. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 12-12-2022, passed by the learned writ court in W.P.(S) No. 7251 of 2017; whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal issued against the petitioner has been quashed and set aside and the appellant-respondents were directed to extend all consequential benefit to the writ petitioner-respondent.

7. Briefly stated, the respondent-writ petitioner was Circle Officer and was posted on various places. After cadre division of the State of Bihar, the respondent- writ petitioner was allocated Jharkhand cadre.

8. While he was posted at Panki and was performing additional charge of Lesliganj for the period 2003, a charge memo was issued on 21/10/2009 with regard to 20 separate charges of misconduct and subsequently a departmental proceeding was initiated. Accordingly, Inquiry officer was appointed and the IO on the basis of comments given by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau concluded the proceeding and held that eight charges were found to be proved, and accepting the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed an order by which the petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal.

9. The respondent- writ petitioner assailed the impugned order of termination on amongst the other grounds that there was non-examination of witnesses and the documents were proved without any oral evidence.

10. Learned writ court after hearing learned counsel for the parties quashed the impugned order by holding that an opinion or an internal enquiry cannot be basis to punish a delinquent employee rather; the charges are to be proved before the Inquiry officer, on the basis of some evidence.

11. In Crux, the learned single judge quashed the departmental proceeding on the ground that the documents were not proved by oral witness. However, liberty has been given to the appellant-respondents to proceed afresh, if so advised.

12. For brevity, para 8 and 9 of the order impugned is quoted here in below.

“8. In both the judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-examination of witnesses, where some documents are to be proved, will result in violation of the principle of natural justice, which will mean that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the delinquent to defend his/her case. Thus the entire proceeding and the enquiry stand vitiated.

9. Considering the aforesaid judgments, as the case in hand is squarely covered by the law laid down, as admittedly none proved the documents. I am inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. Consequently, the entire enquiry report as well as the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 10530/Ranchi, dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure-6) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to extend all the consequential benefits to the petitioner immediately. The respondents, if so wishes, may proceed afresh.”

13. As a matter of fact, the law with regard to examination of witness is now no more res integra. The learned writ Court has rightly referred the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others , (2009) 2 SCC 570 and also the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Saroj Kumar Sinha , (201