A disciplinary penalty cannot stand when material evidence is not proved through relevant witnesses.

The applicant, an NDMC Senior Assistant/Area Inspector, faced disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on an allegation that he demanded a bribe of ₹30,000 from a shop allottee.

The charge was based, among other things, on complaints, a video recording and its transcription, a seizure memorandum, and an FSL report.

The Inquiry Officer found the charge proved, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed removal from service; the applicant’s appeal was rejected.

During the OA’s pendency, the applicant died.

1. Whether the finding of guilt could stand when material relied upon—including the seizure memorandum, DVD and FSL report—was not proved through relevant witnesses in the inquiry.

2. Whether the penalty and appellate orders, founded on the inquiry report and unproved evidence, should be set aside.

3. Whether the matter should be remitted for a fresh inquiry despite the applicant’s death during the OA’s pendency.

Under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, disciplinary charges must be established through evidence in the inquiry; material relied upon cannot simply be treated as proof where it has not been duly proved and the charged employee has not had the opportunity to test it.

The Tribunal relied on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, for the principle that the Inquiry Officer acts as an independent adjudicator and must assess evidence produced by the department.

It also referred to Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, UP Cooperative Federation Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 505, for the rule that, where charges are denied, the department must lead evidence and afford cross-examination; even documentary evidence must be proved by a witness unless admitted.

The Tribunal additionally reproduced authorities concerning authentication and admissibility of electronic records, including Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473.

The Tribunal found that the seizure memorandum and relevant letters were not proved, the DVD was not relied upon or proved in the inquiry, and the FSL witness was not examined.

The witnesses identified to prove key documents were dropped, leaving the applicant without an opportunity to cross-examine them.

Because the DVD itself had not been proved, the Tribunal considered the transcription derived from it insufficient to establish the allegation.

The Inquiry Officer’s finding therefore rested on material not properly proved, and the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities’ reliance on that material rendered their orders unsustainable.

Although remittal might ordinarily have been considered, the applicant’s death during the proceedings led the Tribunal to bring the matter to a close.

It directed that the deceased applicant and his family, including his legal heirs, receive consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, preferably within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.