Vijay Kumar Mitra vs Chief Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited

Deepak Roshan, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure-10), passed by the 4th respondent, by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure-12), issued by the same 4th respondent, whereby the Appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

Shorn of unnecessary details, on 09.10. 2014, a complaint was made by one Sandeep Kumar Gupta before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance against the petitioner regarding illegal gratification of Rs.5000/-. At the relevant time petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Ganeshpur, Dhanbad. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 14.10.2014. Thereafter, a raid was conducted by Vigilance Bureau on 15.10.2014 and the petitioner was caught red handed with Rs.5000 and he was sent to jail. On 03.11.2015 charge was framed against the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated vide order dated 09.11.2015. The petitioner was suspended from service w.e.f. 15.10.2014 vide order dated 07.11.2014 and the suspension was revoked on 24.02.2016. After completion of departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, 2nd show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27.09.2017 to which the petitioner duly replied on 25.10.2017. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not find the reply of the petitioner satisfactory and vide impugned order dated 08.02.2018, dismissed him from service. Against the order of dismissal petitioner preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.08.2018, who confirmed the order of punishment.

Throwing challenge to the aforesaid punishment order and appellate order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without any rhyme and reason and it is completely non-speaking and non-reasoned order. She further contended that it is a case of no evidence, inasmuch as, no witness has been examined in order to prove the documents and it is now, no more res-integra that every document/ any document has to be proved by way of oral evidence. She further draws attention of this Court towards internal page-4 of the enquiry report and submits that the last two paragraphs will itself show that no oral evidence has been adduced and the respondents have decided to proceed on the basis of documents available on record; as such, the impugned orders are bad in law and the same should be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned orders and submits that there is no procedural irregularity inasmuch as the petitioner was given full opportunity of being heard and 2nd show-cause notice has also been issued and after perusing the reply to the 2nd show-cause notice, the impugned order has been passed; as such, no interference is required.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears from internal page-4 of the enquiry report (running page No. 33) that when the Department sent a letter being letter No. 50 dated 14.10.2016 to the witnesses to appear to prove the documents, a letter was received from the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi, vide its letter dated 26.10.2016 that the witnesses named by the Enquiry Officer, are basically Officers of Anti-Corruption Bureau, and they should not be sent for giving their evidence in the departmental proceeding on behalf of the Department and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer decided to proceed in the proceeding without any oral evidence and finally came to the conclusion that the allegation made in the charge-sheet has been proved.

The law is no more res-integra that any document has to be proved by oral evidence. In the case of Satendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi15 and Nirmala J. Jhala16, we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.

As a consequence, thereof, the High Court fell into grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing penalty upon the appellant.”

Emphasis Supplied

After going through the aforesaid judgment, it appears that in the above referred case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt several previous judgments and reiterated the law what was laid down in the celebrated case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570] and State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha [(2010) 2 SCC 772] and in unequivocal term reiterated the law that no document can be deemed to be proved without any oral evidence. As such, on this score alone, the petitioner is entitled for relief, as prayed in the instant writ application.

Further, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has only written down the facts and without any reason as to how and why he is in agreement with the report of Enquiry Officer and why he is not in agreement with the reply of the petitioner to the 2nd show-cause notice and has issued the impugned order of dismissal. In other words, no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned. There is no deliberation of any ground taken by the petitioner in the reply to the 2nd show-cause notice; as such, on this score also the impugned orders need to be quashed.

Even the Appellate Authority has not considered all these aspects.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned order dated 08.02.2018 (Annexure-10) and order dated 09.08.2018(Annexure-12), are hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.