Judicial observations cannot alter documentary evidence; documents must be proved on their own face value.

The petitioners (Department of Posts) challenged an order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, which quashed the dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders against the respondent, Rahul Kumar.

The respondent had been dismissed from the post of GDSBPM following allegations that his educational mark-sheets were not issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

The CAT ordered his reinstatement with consequential relief but granted the petitioners liberty to complete the inquiry by cross-examining the relevant authorities.

Before the High Court, the petitioners did not contest the reinstatement order itself but sought clarification on certain factual observations made by the CAT regarding the Board's verification letters dated 05.10.2016 and 14.05.2018.

1. Whether judicial observations in an order can supersede or alter the literal contents of documentary evidence placed on record.

2. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioners concede to the primary relief of reinstatement granted by the lower tribunal.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of the Law of Evidence that the contents of a document must be proved on its own face value and through the testimony of competent witnesses.

The court relied on the principle that judicial observations cannot alter the factual substance of a document used as evidence in a departmental inquiry.

The Court analyzed the petitioners' grievance that the CAT had made factually incorrect observations in paragraphs 7(a) & (b) of the impugned order regarding the verification of the respondent's mark-sheets.

The High Court reasoned that since a de novo or continued inquiry was already permitted by the CAT, the Inquiry Officer is legally bound to assess the documents (the Board’s letters) independently.

The Court held that a judicial observation does not have the power to "alter" the text of a document; rather, the document must be proved by adhering to the established rules of evidence during the inquiry proceedings.

The Court clarified that the contents of documents cannot be altered by judicial observations and directed that the Inquiry Officer must evaluate the evidence and the petitioners must prove the charges by examining competent witnesses as per the rules of evidence.