In disciplinary proceedings, the mere production of documents is legally insufficient. The contents of such documents must be substantiated through the oral examination of witnesses. Failure to prove documentation through testimony violates natural justice and renders the disciplinary findings and consequent punishment unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Service Jurisprudence - Disciplinary Proceedings - Major penalty - Stoppage of salary increments - Necessity of recording evidence - Role of inquiry officer as independent adjudicator - Requirement to prove contents of documents through oral testimony. (Paras 7-10)

(B) Natural Justice - Principles of fair play - Need for oral examination of witnesses - Documentary evidence alone is insufficient for establishing guilt in quasi-judicial inquiries - Prohibition against acting as both prosecutor and judge - Consequence of non-compliance. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government official, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged administrative irregularities related to land classification and transfer. The disciplinary authority imposed a punishment involving the withholding of salary increments based on the inquiry report. The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the inquiry was procedurally flawed as no oral witnesses were examined to prove the charges or the authenticity of the relied-upon documents.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the disciplinary authorities failed to produce any oral evidence, relying solely on documentary records. It held that the inquiry officer, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, has a mandatory duty to ensure that charges are proven through legal evidence. The failure to examine witnesses renders the proceedings deficient, as documents cannot prove themselves without testimony regarding their contents and authenticity.

Issues: Whether an order of punishment in a disciplinary proceeding can be sustained when the authorities fail to examine any oral witnesses to prove the contents of the documentary evidence relied upon during the inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental inquiry is a quasi-judicial function. It is a well-settled principle that materials collected during investigation must be proven in the inquiry through competent oral testimony. The mere production of documents does not satisfy the requirements of natural justice or the evidentiary standard expected in such proceedings. When an inquiry officer fails to verify the contents of documents by examining witnesses, the entire proceedings stand vitiated, rendering the subsequent punishment order unsustainable in law.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the punishment orders were quashed and set aside, with directions to provide consequential benefits to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. summary of factual background and nature of disciplinary charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. requirement of oral evidence to prove charges in disciplinary inquiries (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. supreme court precedents mandating fair inquiry and examination of witnesses (Para 8 , 9)
4. court order quashing disciplinary punishment due to procedural illegality (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

a. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction for quashing the appellate order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 vide No.5/ Complaint-1-82/2015- 19756(HRMS)/Ranchi whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and the punishment of stoppage of two salary increments with cumulative effect was upheld;

And/or

b. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction for quashing the order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Respondent no.3 vide No.5/Complaint-1-82/2015- 5049(HRMS)/Ranchi under Rule 14(vi) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was awarded the punishment of stoppage of two salary increments with cumulative effect;

And / Or

c. For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel for the submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Collector on 13.06.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Sub- Divisional Officer. The petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 30.10.2015 wherein the following allegations were levelled against the petitioner:-

(i) In Kathautia Coal Mines, 82.76 acres of land (disputed land) which was Gairmazurwa Jungle-Jhari land was transferred to M/S Usha Martin Pvt. Ltd. on the pretext of being Gairmazurwa Government land for mining which are against the rules.

(ii) On perusal of the records it transpires that those lands that were actually Gairmazurwa Jungle-Jhari land were declared to be Gairmazurwa land on the basis of photocopy of the khatians of the disputed land which were found to be written as 'Torn'. It is further alleged that since the khatians were torn, no evidence could be found that the disputed land was Gairmazurwa land. That in fact the Khesra Panji and Check slip records exhibit the disputed land to be Gairmazurwa Jungle-Jhari land which was declared as Gairmazurwa land.

(iii) By letter no. 10 dated 29.10.2015 issued by Mr. N.K.Mishra, the then Commissioner of Palamu, the petitioner was alleged to have violated Section 49 of the CNT Act by permitting the sale of the disputed land.

(iv) Without inspecting the khatian, the petitioner had wrongly reported Gairmazurwa Jungle-Jhari land to be Gairmazurwa land for purpose of allowing mining and forwarded the report to the superior authorities accordingly which was against the rules.

4. The petitioner has raised a legal ground that no oral witness has been examined in the case and has drawn attention towards the charge memo which is giving reference of list of evidences and all are documentary evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the charges were grave, however, he could not dispute the facts that no oral witness was examined in order to prove the documentary evidence.

6. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the law in this regard is well settled that any document has to be proved by oral evidence. As a matter of fact, an enquiry officer has to act as an umpire and not as a representative of the respondents.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, in this case no oral witness has been examined in order to prove the document/charges levelled against the petitioner. The issue of examination of oral witness has been dealt repeatedly by the Hon’b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document