Chandan Prajapati v. Suresh Kumar Azad

1. The Central Administrative Tribunal[1] has, in the impugned order set aside the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, culminating in a penalty order dated 14 December 2016 on the ground that the charge-sheet issued to the respondent was accompanied with a list of 26 documents on which the petitioner proposed to rely to establish the charges against the respondent, but without any witness named in the list of witnesses annexed to the charge-sheet. Ergo, holds the Tribunal, none of the documents, on which the petitioner relied, was proved in accordance with law. “the Tribunal”, hereinafter

2. Before the Tribunal, the submission of the petitioner, that the charges against the respondent had been rightly found proved, by the Inquiry Officer[2] on the basis of the 26 documents enumerated in the list of documents annexed to the charge-sheet, stands recorded.

3. The Tribunal has held that, in the absence of any witness cited by the petitioner to prove the documents, the documents could not have been treated as proved and could not, therefore, be relied upon as establishing the charges against the respondent.

4. The legal position in this regard is settled. The Supreme Court has, thus held, in State of UP v. Saroj Kumar Sinha[3] and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank[4]: From Saroj Kumar Sinha:

From Roop Singh Negi “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial ‘IO” hereinafter proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

5. As the documents, on which the IO relied to hold the charges against the respondent to have been proved, were themselves not proved in accordance with law, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the disciplinary proceedings. As the infirmity was in the chargesheet itself, and 11 years had elapsed since its issuance, the Tribunal was also justified in its decision not to remit the proceedings to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.

7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.