In disciplinary proceedings, the production of documents alone is insufficient to sustain charges. To satisfy principles of natural justice, the contents of documentary evidence must be formally proved by examining oral witnesses. Failure to examine witnesses in an inquiry renders the proceedings and the resulting penalty invalid.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

“1.(a) For issuance of a Writ(s)/Order(s) in the nature of Certiorari to quash/ cancel the order as contained in Memo No.1537 dated 15.06.2015 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been awarded major punishment by fixing the petitioner's Pay at the lowest stage in the pay scale;

(b) For issuance of a Writ(s)/Order(s) in the nature of Certiorari to quash/cancel the order as contained in Memo No. 2255 dated 14.08.2015 whereby and whereunder the order as contained in Memo No. 1537 dated 15.06.2015 has been upheld by the appellate authority;

AND/OR

(c) For passing such other order/ orders, Writ/Writs as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case;

AND

(d) Pending final hearing of the instant Writ Petition. Your Lordship may graciously be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 15.06.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1537.”

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Iron Slag Pickers Labourers Society Limited, Jamshedpur. He was served with charge-sheet in Form-A alleging therein that in spite of violation of the terms of the agreement, the petitioner renewed agreement with the allottee, namely, Rajesh Gupta on 16.06.2012. The petitioner in its reply dated 15.12.2014 denied all the charges. On 29.01.2015, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and the petitioner was directed to show-cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice on 26.03.2015. Thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on the petitioner on 15.06.2015 by fixing his pay to the lowest stage in the pay-scale. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 14.08.2015 affirming the penalty order passed by the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authority, the instant writ application has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner amongst other grounds contends that no oral witness has been examined in this case. He further draws attention of the Court towards the charge-sheet and the enquiry report and submits that oral witness has not been examined in order to prove the charges against the delinquent and now it is a settled law that any document is to be proved by the oral evidence. He further relies on several judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court including one recent judgment in “ Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Others ”2026 SCC Online SC 505.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents though supports the impugned order but could not point out that any oral witness had been examined in order to prove the charge / documentary evidence.

5. 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.

6. 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’ble Apex