In departmental inquiries, the mere production of documents is insufficient to establish guilt. The contents of documentary evidence must be proven through the oral examination of witnesses by the inquiry officer, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice and the requirement for a fair adjudicatory process.

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 of the resolution contained in memo no. VIG / GEN / SK /19 dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure- 8) passed by the respondent no.3, whereby and where under petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of dismissal.

AND

b. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the resolution contained in memo no. HR / A&R / 1969 dated 21.09.2019 / 23.09.2019 (Annxure-9) passed by the respondent no.1 in the appeal preferred by the petitioner, whereby and where under punishment of dismissal passed in resolution dated 15.04.2019 has been affirmed by the appellate authority.

AND

c. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the resolution contained in memo no. A&R / SS / 51 dated 20.05.2020 / 23.07.2020 (Annexure- 10) passed by the Reviewing Committee in the review preferred by the petitioner, whereby and where under punishment of dismissal passed in resolution dated 15.04.2019 has been modified to "Removal from Service".

AND

d. Upon quashing of the resolutions dated 15.04.2019, 21.09.2019 / 23.09.2019 and 20.05.2020 / 23.07.2020 a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities for reinstatement of the Petitioner as a branch manager in the respondent bank with continuity in service and with all consequential benefits and full back wages.

And / Or

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

3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk- cum-Cashier-cum-Typist on 15.09.1997 and in the year 2003, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager. In the year 2007, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager.

4. After discharging 21 years of continuous service, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo dated 21.08.2018 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The Article of Charges levelled against the petitioner was that while working as a Branch Manager at Tundoo Branch during the period from 01.10.2014 to 27.10.2016, he failed to discharge the duties with utmost devotion and diligence. It was alleged that due diligence was not followed by the petitioner in sanction of loan and serious irregularities were observed in sanction and post-sanction which ultimately resulted in N.P.A. and the petitioner failed to take recovery steps in N.P.A. accounts. It was alleged that the omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner resulted in loss of Rs. 83.82 Lakhs to the bank. Thereafter, upon report of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal which was subsequently only modified by the review committee to the punishment of removal. Hence, this writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a legal ground that no oral witness has been examined in the case and drawn attention towards the charge memo which is giving reference of evidence and all are documentary evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted 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.

7. 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.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the p