Oral Evidence is Mandatory to Prove Documents and Charges in Quasi-Judicial Departmental Proceedings

The petitioner was appointed by Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) on 19.06.1980 under a voluntary retirement scheme in place of his mother, Smt. Jirwa Kamin

After 39 years of service, a complaint was received in 2019 alleging the petitioner secured employment by falsely representing himself as the son of Jagdeo Bhuiya

A departmental inquiry was initiated; however, despite 18 sittings, the management failed to examine a single witness to prove the charges or the documents relied upon

Based on this inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner on 16/17.12.2021

The petitioner’s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 03.06.2022

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of these orders and payment of retiral benefits, having reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021

1. Whether documents can be relied upon to prove charges in a departmental proceeding in the absence of oral evidence

2. Whether the Disciplinary Authority can rely upon unproved documents or charges not originally framed to dismiss an employee

The Court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and the law governing departmental inquiries as quasi-judicial proceedings.

established that an inquiry officer must act as an independent adjudicator and that charges must be proved through legal evidence

mandates that while the Evidence Act is not strictly applicable, documents do not prove themselves and must be supported by oral testimony from witnesses competent to speak to their contents

The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally flawed as the management failed to produce any oral witnesses to substantiate the documentary evidence against the petitioner

The Court reasoned that a departmental inquiry is a quasi-judicial function where the Inquiry Officer must ensure charges are proven by "materials brought on record in a manner known to law"

In this case, the Inquiry Officer's report was found to be inconclusive because the complainant was never examined and no officer from the Personnel Department was engaged to authenticate the service records

The Court highlighted that the management’s reliance on documents without examining witnesses to prove their authenticity violated the basic principles of fair play and natural justice

Consequently, the finding of guilt was based on "no evidence," rendering the dismissal order legally unsustainable

The High Court quashed the Order of Dismissal dated 16/17.12.2021 and the Appellate Order dated 03.06.2022

Since the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021, the Court directed the respondents to verify records and pay all monetary and terminal benefits to the petitioner within 12 weeks

The writ petition was allowed