A disciplinary action cannot rely solely on unverified documents, requiring witness testimony to substantiate evidence in proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.

Mr. Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vara Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.5141 of 2013.

Brief facts of the case:

4. The brief facts for adjudication of this matter are that the respondent (writ petitioner) was initially appointed on daily wage basis in November, 1982. She was regularized as Helper (Technical) with effect from 01.11.1988. She is a physically handicapped person having 55% disability. She rendered thirty years of service with appellant No.2 – department (hereinafter referred to as, “the department”). The department issued a show cause notice dated 17.07.2012 to the respondent asking her explanation on the ground that the School Transfer Certificate produced by her was not genuine. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 04.08.2012 containing similar charge was issued to her. The respondent filed her reply on 14.08.2012 and denied the charge in toto. Dissatisfied with the reply of the respondent, the department instituted domestic enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. After completion of the enquiry, the respondent was served with an order of punishment of removal from service dated 25.11.2012. The respondent, without preferring an appeal, approached this Court by filing the writ petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, interfered with the punishment order on twin grounds. The first reason is that the Enquiry Officer’s report was not supplied to the respondent before imposition of the punishment. Thus, by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar , (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the punishment was held to be illegal. Secondly, in paragraph 18 of the impugned order, it was held that the case of the prosecution was based on a communication dated 20.06.2012 sent by the Head Master, wherein the genuineness of the certificate issued to the petitioner was called in question. Since the said Head Master did not enter the witness box to prove the contents of the document dated 20.06.2012, the said document cannot become the reason to hold the respondent as guilty.

Contentions of the appellants:

6. Learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold submissions. Firstly, by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra), it is submitted that mere non-supply of the enquiry report will not vitiate the domestic enquiry. In the event such report was not supplied, it could be supplied in the Court and, in turn, the delinquent employee would have been asked to show the prejudice in not getting the enquiry report. Straightaway setting aside the disciplinary proceedings on account of non-supply of enquiry report is not permissible in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra). Secondly, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 , wherein various previous judgments have been considered, it is submitted that the writ Court cannot sit as an appellate Court to reweigh or reappreciate the evidence. Only in cases of serious procedural impropriety which causes serious prejudice to the other side, the interference can be made. The sufficiency of evidence cannot be the subject matter of judicial review.