In departmental proceedings, documents are not self-proving and must be substantiated by oral testimony. Disciplinary action against a superannuated employee is unsustainable absent evidence of grave misconduct, moral turpitude, or financial impact on the state.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:-

“(i) To quash and set aside the Notification contained in Memo No.2583 dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-6) issued under the pen and signature of respondent no.3, whereby and whereunder, the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner.

(ii) To also quash and set aside the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dated 24.7.20 (Annexure-3).

(iii) During the pendency of the present writ petition, the operation, execution and implementation of the impugned Notification contained in Memo No.2583 dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-6) may kindly be stayed.”

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that without following the provision of law and without there being any oral evidence, the petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceeding. She submits that the Enquiry Officer relied upon some documents but surprisingly those documents were not brought on record as per law nor their contents were brought on record. She submits that some of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which are absolutely factual in nature should have been proved by oral evidence, but in the instant case no person was produced before the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge.

4. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned SC (L & C) -II, representing the respondent – State, after going through the records submits that there are sufficient materials in proof of misconduct of the petitioner. He submits that in the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer relied upon the documents but he admits that there is nothing in record to suggest that any oral evidence was ever adduced. He also submits that since there was a procedural lapse, the matter be remanded to the Authorities for a fresh enquiry.

5. Facts of this case are as follows:-

5.1. The petitioner at the relevant time was holding the post of District Education Officer, Palamau.

5.2. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. The gist of charge (total six charges) against the petitioner is as follows:-

5.3. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No.3026 dated 26.09.2019.

5.4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who enquired into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

5.5. The petitioner refuted the charges by giving a detailed reply and also named several persons and requested the Enquiry Officer to call them as witness in support of his innocence.

5.6. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). He arrived at a conclusion that all the aforesaid six charges against the petitioner are found to be proved.

5.7. Thereafter based on enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondents vide impugned Notification as contained in Memo No.2583 dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), inflicted punishment upon the petitioner withholding two increments with cumulative effect (major punishment). The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

6. After going through the enquiry report, I find that the Enquiry Officer solely relied upon the documents to arrive at a conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. From the records, it is also clear that there is no person who has been produced as witness either to prove the documents or its contents.

7. This Court in W.P.(S) No.2076 of 2021 (Shyam N