Judicial observations cannot alter documentary contents, which must be proved through evidence in fresh inquiries.

The respondent, Kunal Kumar, was dismissed from the post of GDSBPM following a departmental inquiry regarding the authenticity of his mark-sheets.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 050/00600/2024, quashed the dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders, treating them as illegal and arbitrary.

The CAT directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits and granted the petitioners liberty to complete the inquiry by producing the author/signatory of the verification reports for cross-examination.

The Union of India challenged this order, specifically seeking clarification on factual observations made by the CAT in paragraphs 7(a) & (b) regarding a verification letter dated 14.05.2018 from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

1. Whether the observations made by a judicial tribunal can alter the contents or evidentiary value of a document used in a departmental inquiry.

2. Whether the writ petition challenging the CAT's order should be entertained when the petitioners do not intend to assail the primary direction of reinstatement.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of the Law of Evidence and Administrative Law that the contents of a documentary record cannot be altered by judicial observation and must be proved on its own face value.

Documentation in departmental proceedings must be proved by examining a competent witness to allow the delinquent employee a fair opportunity for cross-examination under the rules of evidence.

The petitioners argued that the CAT misconstrued the letter dated 14.05.2018 issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, which stated that the respondent's mark-sheet was among those "not issued by the Board’s Office".

The High Court reasoned that judicial observations in an order cannot override the literal contents of a document and the Inquiry Officer is duty-bound to consider the document on its own merit.

Since the petitioners expressed they no longer intended to challenge the quashing of the dismissal but only sought clarification on the evidentiary treatment of the board's letter, the Court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's substantive directions.

The Court clarified that the contents of any document cannot be altered by judicial observations and must be proved by a competent witness during the fresh inquiry.

The writ petition was disposed of as "not pressed" in light of these observations.