Appellate Burden of Proof Lies With the Principal Challenger to Produce Relevant Disciplinary Enquiry Proceedings

The second respondent (Raju Daniel) was terminated by the appellant bank in 2013.

In 2018, after a delay of approximately three and a half years, the respondent filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, challenging said termination.

A Writ Court, in an earlier proceeding (W.P. No. 6664 of 2025), directed the appellant bank to produce all enquiry proceedings before the Shops and Establishments Authority.

The bank appealed this order, contending that since the respondent participated in the enquiry and the documents were already served upon him, the primary burden of proof to establish his case lay with the respondent.

1. Whether the burden of proof to produce enquiry documents before the Appellate Authority lies with the employer regardless of the lapse of time.

2. Whether the Writ Court's direction to the employer to produce all enquiry proceedings was sustainable in law.

The "burden of proof lies with the person who files an appeal before the authority at the first instance".

An appellant must produce relevant documents available to them to establish the grounds of their challenge before the competent authority.

The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings concluded years prior and the appeal was filed after a significant lapse of three and a half years.

It was undisputed that the second respondent had participated in the original enquiry and that all relevant departmental proceedings were served upon him at that time.

The Court reasoned that because the respondent is the "aggrieved person" initiating the statutory appeal, he has a "bounden duty" to file the documents necessary to establish his case.

The Court found that the Writ Court erred in shifting this evidentiary burden entirely onto the Bank (the appellant), especially given the significant delay in filing the appeal which impacted the Bank’s immediate production of records.

The Court held that the second respondent (the employee) must produce all documents available to him to establish his case before the competent authority, and confirmed the direction to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.