Judicial observations cannot alter documentation; evidence must be proved by competent witnesses through due process.

The respondent, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM), was dismissed from service following an inquiry into the authenticity of his educational qualifications.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 050/00601/2024, quashed the dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders on January 7, 2026.

The CAT ordered the respondent's reinstatement but granted the petitioners (Union of India) liberty to complete a fresh inquiry by modifying the witness list and allowing cross-examination.

The Union of India filed this writ petition not to challenge the reinstatement order itself, but to seek clarification on certain factual observations made by the CAT in Paragraphs 7(a) & (b) regarding a verification letter from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board dated May 14, 2018.

Whether the observations regarding factual documents made by a judicial body in its order can override the actual contents/face value of said documents during a subsequent inquiry?

The Court applied the principle of the "best evidence rule" and the independence of departmental inquiries, holding that the contents of a legal document cannot be altered by judicial observations.

The rules of evidence requiring that documents relied upon in an inquiry must be proved by examining a competent witness and must be considered on their own face value rather than through the lens of external judicial remarks.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ primary concern was that the CAT had made factually incorrect observations regarding a letter from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, which stated that the respondent's mark-sheet was not issued by the Board.

The High Court reasoned that a judicial order's commentary on a document does not possess the power to "alter" the document’s inherent contents.

The Court emphasized that for the purposes of the de novo inquiry permitted by the CAT, the Inquiry Officer is duty-bound to evaluate the document independently based on its face value.

To ensure procedural fairness and evidentiary standards, the Court held that the document must be proved through the testimony of a competent witness (such as an official from the Board) rather than relying on prior judicial summaries.

The Court clarified that any factual observations made by the CAT in the impugned order would not bind the Inquiry Officer; the documents must be judged on their own merits and proved by adhering to the rules of evidence during the fresh inquiry.

The Court directed the Inquiry Officer to consider the documents on their face value and through the examination of competent witnesses.