Documentary evidence must be assessed on its face value and proved by competent witnesses during departmental inquiries.

The petitioners (Department of Posts) challenged an order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, which quashed the dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders against the respondent, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM).

The respondent had been dismissed following allegations that his educational mark-sheets were forged.

The CAT ordered his reinstatement but granted the petitioners liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry by allowing the respondent to cross-examine the authors of the verification documents.

The Union of India moved the High Court not to set aside the CAT's order, but to seek clarification regarding certain factual observations made by the CAT in Paragraph 7 (a) & (b) concerning the verification correspondence with the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

1. Whether the factual observations made by a judicial tribunal in its order can override the literal contents of documentary evidence during a subsequent inquiry?

2. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioners do not intend to assail the core findings of the impugned order?

The court applied the fundamental principle of the Law of Evidence regarding documentary proof, establishing that the contents of a document are to be considered on their own face value and must be proved by examining competent witnesses.

Judicial observations cannot alter the inherent nature or content of a pre-existing document used as evidence in a departmental proceeding.

The Court evaluated the petitioners' concern that the CAT had made factually incorrect observations regarding a letter dated 14.05.2018 from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, which allegedly stated that the respondent's mark-sheets were not issued by the Board.

The Court reasoned that judicial observations do not possess the power to "alter" the actual contents of a document.

It emphasized that in the de novo inquiry permitted by the CAT, the Inquiry Officer is duty-bound to examine the document independently. The "rules of evidence" require the document to be proved by a competent witness (the author or signatory) rather than relying on the Tribunal's summary of it.

Since the petitioners accepted the CAT's primary direction to reinstate and re-inquire, the Court found no reason to interfere with the judgment itself.

It clarified that the contents of documents must be considered on their face value and proved through proper evidence in the subsequent inquiry, independent of the CAT's observations.

The respondent is to be reinstated subject to the results of the modified inquiry.