Nazre Imam vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4102 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      WP(S) No. 361 of 2019
                                                ------

                    Nazre Imam...                                          ......Petitioner.
                                           Versus
               1.   The State of Jharkhand

2. The Principal Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi.

3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi.

.....Respondents.

          CORAM          :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                                 ------
           For the petitioner(s):    Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate.

For the respondent(s): Ms. Sunita Kumari, Advocate.

-------

15/11.10.2022: Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. A very short point has been raised by the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been punished in the departmental proceeding, but the departmental proceeding has been conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is her contention that though several documents were relied upon in the proceeding, but none of the documents were exhibited and no witnesses were produced. She also relies upon the enquiry report, which according to her suggests that no witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding.

3. Counsel for the State submits that the Enquiry Officer based on some status report and other reports, found the charges to be proved against the petitioner and the punishment was inflicted upon him.

4. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order No. 303 dated 19.1.2017 by which, he was punished with reversion to the lowest stage of pay scale in the post of Assistant Engineer. It has been further held that except the subsistence allowance, no further amount would be paid to the petitioner during the suspension period. The departmental appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.2.2018.

5. On the point, which has been raised, it is not necessary to deal in detail the facts and other aspects of the matter. The issue is in a departmental proceeding evidence has to be led by the prosecution. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 that 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 upon by the department. A document which is not proved by oral evidence could not have been taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge is proved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 in

the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra) has held as under:

14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. 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."

6. In the judgment, 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.

7. Considering the aforesaid provision of law, I have gone through the entire enquiry report. Though the enquiry report refers to some documents, but it is clear from the enquiry report that neither any oral evidence was produced nor any person came forward before the Enquiry Officer to prove those documents, which was relied by the Enquiry Oficer.

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, as the case in hand is squarely covered by the law laid down, as admittedly none proved the documents, I am inclined to allow this petition. Consequently, the entire enquiry report as well as the order of punishment dated 19.1.2017 and the appellate order dated 20.2.2018 is quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.

Anu/-CP2                                                        (ANANDA SEN, J.)