Arun Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3966 Jhar

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                      WP(S) No. 5205 of 2018
                                                ------

          Arun Kumar Singh..                                         ......Petitioner.
                                             Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Ranchi.

2. The Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Ranchi.

3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Ranchi.

.....Respondents.

          CORAM          :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                              ------

For the petitioner(s): M/s Neha Bhardwaj, Akanksha Priya and Sneha Kumari, Advocates.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV

-----

06/27.09.2022: Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The sole ground taken by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the Enquiry Officer has proved the guilt of the petitioner without any evidence as none proved the documents, which was relied by the Enquiry Officer.

Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, counsel for the petitioner, submits that those documents were produced by the Presenting Officer but no witness has been examined to prove the said documents. She further submits that in absence of production of witness to prove the document, the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated. She, in support her submissions, relies upon the judgments passed 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 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.

3. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV, supporting the order of punishment, submits that the documents were supplied to the petitioner, who relied upon the said documents and took part in the entire departmental proceeding. After participating in the proceeding, now he cannot take the plea that the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated. He further submits that since the entire case is based on documentary evidence, the production of document is sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner.

4. Considering the legal issue raised, it is not necessary to deal with the facts leading to the charge and the nature of allegation against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner being the Range Forest Officer was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding. Charge-sheet was submitted. Thereafter a Departmental Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry submitted a report and charge which was leveled against the petitioner was found to be proved. Thereafter, vide order No. 1776 dated 5.4.2016, the petitioner was

punished. The punishment is of recovery of Rs.1,61,050/- and stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment also stood dismissed. The enquiry report has been brought on record vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition in which, there is a clear observation of the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the Presenting Officer had not produced any oral evidence. From the enquiry report, which is based on some documents, the guilt of the petitioner has been proved. No witness has been examined to prove the said documents, this is an admitted fact.

6. A departmental Eqnuiry 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. 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."

Further in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the documents which were produced before the Enquiry Officer needs to be proved. Paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid

procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents."

7. 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.

8. Considering the aforesaid judgments, 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 5.4.2016 as contained in Memo No. 1776 is quashed. The appellate order as contained in Letter No. 2504 dated 14.6.2018 is also quashed.

9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.

Anu/-CP2                                                           (ANANDA SEN, J.)