Power to Enforce Witness Attendance in Departmental Inquiries is Enabling and Not a Mandatory Obligation

The Petitioner, a Public Relations Inspector (Postal), was subjected to departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for allegedly assaulting a Postmaster with a slipper on 28.02.2000

Following an inquiry where charges were proved, the Petitioner was dismissed from service on 05.12.2000

On revision, the penalty was reduced to compulsory retirement on 04.03.2002

The Petitioner challenged these orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), primarily contending that the inquiry was vitiated because the Inquiry Officer (IO) failed to compel the attendance of a defense witness, Sh. D.K. Vashishtha, who had refused to testify

The CAT dismissed the original and review applications in 2005

1. Whether Section 5 of the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972, imposes a mandatory duty on an Inquiry Officer to compel the attendance of a witness

2. Whether the non-examination of a defense witness who refused to participate vitiates the departmental inquiry proceedings

Section 5 of the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972, which grants an inquiring authority the same powers as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, for summoning and enforcing witness attendance

Section 32 of the CPC, which stipulates that a Court "may" compel attendance, signifying discretionary rather than mandatory power

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over disciplinary findings unless they are perverse or patently illegal

The "preponderance of probabilities" standard of proof applicable to departmental proceedings

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that Section 5 of the 1972 Act creates a "rigid obligation" on the IO to enforce witness attendance

The Court reasoned that the Act is an enabling provision, equipping the IO with procedural tools rather than casting a binding duty to compel witnesses in every instance

The Court noted that the IO must exercise this power "judiciously and not mechanically"

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by the absence of the witness

The inquiry report relied on the consistent testimony of five eyewitnesses who confirmed the assault, satisfying the threshold of preponderance of probabilities

The Court emphasized that it cannot reapreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless a patent illegality is shown, which was absent in this case

The Court affirmed the CAT’s findings, concluding there was no infirmity in the impugned orders as the charges were established through ample evidence provided by other eyewitnesses