Judicial observations cannot alter the contents of a documentary record which must be proved by evidence.

The petitioners (Postal Department) challenged an order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna, which quashed the dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders against the respondent, Rinki Kumari.

The respondent had been dismissed from the post of GDSMD/MC on allegations that her mark-sheet was not issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

The CAT allowed the respondent's Original Application (O.A. No. 050/00904/2024), directing her reinstatement and granting the petitioners liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry by cross-examining the author of the verification reports.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioners chose not to contest the reinstatement but sought clarification regarding factual observations made by the CAT in paragraph 6(a) of its order, which they claimed misrepresented the verification documents provided by the Board.

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

2. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioners signify their intent not to press the challenge against the primary relief (reinstatement) granted by the CAT?

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 examination of competent witnesses.

It further adhered to the principle of judicial restraint, holding that a judicial observation cannot factually alter or "modify" the actual contents of a document relied upon by a party.

The Court focused on the Petitioners' concern that the CAT’s observations in paragraph 6(a) might prejudice the de novo inquiry. The Additional Solicitor General pointed out that while the CAT made certain remarks, the letter from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board dated 14.05.2018 explicitly stated that the respondent's mark-sheet (among others) had not been issued by the Board’s office.

The Court reasoned that judicial observations do not possess the power to alter the inherent nature or content of a document.

For the purposes of the de novo inquiry permitted by the CAT, the Inquiry Officer is legally bound to evaluate documents based on the evidence presented—specifically by calling the signatory of the document to prove its contents. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to quash the CAT’s order since the law already requires the Inquiry Officer to act independently of the Tribunal’s factual summaries.

The Court directed the Inquiry Officer to decide the matter by adhering to the rules of evidence and ensuring the document is proved by examining a competent witness. The direction for reinstatement and the liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry as ordered by the CAT remain intact.