Judicial Observations Cannot Alter the Contents of Private or Official Documents in Disciplinary Proceedings

The petitioners (Department of Posts) challenged an order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 050/00865/2024.

The CAT had quashed the dismissal, appellate, and revisional orders against the respondent, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), who was terminated following allegations of submitting a fake mark-sheet from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.

The CAT ordered reinstatement with a liberty to the petitioners to complete the inquiry by calling the author of the verification document for cross-examination.

In the present writ, the petitioners did not contest the reinstatement but sought clarification regarding factual observations made by the CAT in Paragraph 6(a) & (b) of its order, which the petitioners claimed were factually incorrect based on the Board's verification letter dated 14.05.2018.

1. Whether the observations made in a judicial order can alter the contents or evidentiary value of a document relied upon in departmental proceedings.

2. Whether the writ petition should be entertained given the petitioners' concession not to challenge the CAT's primary direction for reinstatement.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of the Law of Evidence and Administrative Law that the contents of a document must be proved on their own face value and cannot be modified by judicial observations.

It further emphasized that in departmental inquiries, documents must be proved by examining competent witnesses and adhering to the rules of evidence to ensure a fair trial and the right to cross-examination.

The Court noted the petitioners' submission that a letter from the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board dated 14.05.2018 explicitly stated that the respondent's mark-sheet was not issued by the Board’s Office.

The petitioners were concerned that the CAT’s findings in Paragraph 6 might prejudice the fresh inquiry.

The High Court reasoned that any observation in an order cannot legally "alter" the literal contents of a document.

It held that the Inquiry Officer is duty-bound to consider the document at face value, provided it is proved through a competent witness.

Since the petitioners expressed they no longer intended to assail the core of the CAT's order (reinstatement and fresh inquiry), the Court found that a simple clarification regarding the sanctity of documentary evidence would suffice.

It clarified that the contents of any document cannot be altered by judicial observations and must be proved by the Inquiry Officer by examining competent witnesses as per the rules of evidence.