2023 (2) TMI 1357 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to resolution whereby the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner - challenge to punishment order u/s 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules 2000 which was imposed upon the petitioner for deducting 95% of the pension - none of the documents were exhibited nor any witnesses were examined - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - A departmental Enquiry Officer is an independent adjudicator. He is a quasi-judicial authority. The said Officer is not supposed to be a representative of the department or the Disciplinary Authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department. Even in the absence of the delinquent employee the enquiry officer has to perform his duty to find out independently as to whether charges are proved or not. If the case of the department is based on some documents those documents also needs to be proved. Some witnesses must be produced by the department and must be examined to prove the documents relied by the department. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ROOP SINGH NEGI VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ORS 2008 (12) TMI 727 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance inter alia was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. Further Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF UP. ORS. VERSUS SAROJ KUMAR SINHA 2010 (2) TMI 1050 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the documents which were produced before the Enquiry Officer needs to be proved. In both the judgments the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that non-examination of witnesses where some documents are to be proved will result in violation of the principle of natural justice which will mean that no reasonable opportunity has been given to the delinquent to defend his/her case. Thus the entire proceeding and the enquiry stand vitiated. Considering the aforesaid judgments as the case in hand is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court as admittedly none of the documents were exhibited nor any witnesses were examined it is required to quash the entire departmental proceeding including the order of punishment dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure-10). Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to departmental proceeding initiation and punishment order under Jharkhand Pension Rules.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the resolution initiating departmental proceedings and the punishment order under Section 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. The petitioner argued that despite the initiation of proceedings under relevant rules, no witnesses were examined, and no documents were exhibited during the process. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., it was contended that the failure to examine witnesses and prove documents violates the principles of natural justice. The respondents admitted the lack of examination of witnesses and exhibition of documents, acknowledging the petitioner's submissions.

The Court emphasized the role of the Departmental Enquiry Officer as an independent adjudicator, responsible for examining evidence impartially. Even in the absence of the accused employee, the officer must assess whether charges are proven. It was highlighted that documents relied upon by the department must be proved through oral evidence, and witnesses need to be examined to support these documents. Referring to the judgment in Roop Singh Negi case, the Court reiterated that evidence collected during investigation cannot substitute witness examination in disciplinary proceedings. Additionally, the Court cited the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, emphasizing the necessity of proving documents presented before the Enquiry Officer.

Drawing from the Supreme Court judgments, the Court concluded that the failure to examine witnesses and prove documents in a disciplinary proceeding violates the principles of natural justice. This non-compliance deprives the accused of a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, rendering the entire proceeding and enquiry invalid. Consequently, the Court decided to quash the departmental proceedings and the punishment order due to the absence of witness examination and document proof. The writ petition was allowed, and the Court directed the immediate implementation of consequential benefits resulting from its order.