Disciplinary findings based solely on unproved documents are unsustainable and must be quashed.

The applicant, an SSE/Mechatronics in the Diesel Locomotive Workshop, Varanasi, was deputed on 24 February 2015 to collect documents from M/s Three Star Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. for a tender requiring an “A” Class Electrical Contractor Certificate.

A letter stating that the firm possessed the requisite certificate and had applied for renewal was submitted along with the applicant’s tour report.

Subsequent verification indicated that the letter had not been issued by the Electrical Safety Department and that the firm did not possess the requisite certificate at the relevant time.

A departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant for allegedly forwarding a forged letter and thereby assisting the acceptance of the firm’s tender.

The charge-sheet listed no prosecution witnesses.

The Inquiry Officer, relying principally on documentary material, held Charge I partly proved and Charge II proved.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed compulsory retirement on 25 May 2018, and the Appellate Authority rejected the applicant’s appeal on 15 January 2019.

The applicant challenged both orders, contending that the documents had not been proved through witnesses and that his request to summon employees of the contractor-firm had been rejected.

1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry was vitiated because the documentary evidence relied upon by the Inquiry Officer was not proved through oral evidence, no prosecution witnesses were examined, and the charge-sheet itself listed the prosecution witnesses as “Nil”

2. Whether the refusal to summon employees of M/s Three Star Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., who were material to the applicant’s defence, violated the principles of natural justice and caused prejudice to him

3. Whether the orders imposing compulsory retirement and rejecting the applicant’s appeal could be sustained when they were founded on an inquiry report based on unproved documentary evidence

The Tribunal applied the principle that a departmental inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding and that the Inquiry Officer must base findings on evidence properly brought on record.

Relying on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 921, and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, it held that mere production or tendering of documents is insufficient; their contents must be proved through appropriate evidence, ordinarily by examining witnesses.

Under Prakash Kumar Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 1375, and Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P., (1999) 8 SCC 582, a material request for summoning or examining witnesses must be fairly considered, and non-examination of crucial witnesses causing prejudice may invalidate the inquiry.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity in disciplinary proceedings, together with the alleged obligations under Rule 3(1)(i)–(iii) of the Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966.

The Tribunal found that the charge-sheet identified no prosecution witnesses and that none were examined during the inquiry.

Consequently, the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer—including the disputed letter, verification correspondence, tour report, and related tender records—were not proved through oral evidence and could not legally constitute the evidentiary basis for the findings.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant’s request to summon employees of the contractor-firm was material because their evidence could have clarified whether the disputed letter had been handed over to the applicant by the firm, rather than obtained from the Electrical Safety Department.

The refusal to examine those witnesses therefore caused prejudice and violated the applicant’s right to a fair defence.

Since the Inquiry Officer’s conclusions, and consequently the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities’ orders, were founded on inadmissible or unproved evidence, the decision-making process was legally defective.

The applicant was directed to be treated as continuing in service until the age of superannuation and to receive all consequential benefits, but without back wages.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Liberty was granted to the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with law, after disclosing the documents, documentary evidence, and oral evidence proposed to be relied upon.