Recording of oral evidence is mandatory to prove the contents of documentary evidence in departmental proceedings.

The petitioner, a Constable appointed in 1999, was served a charge sheet on 21.04.2017 for allegedly breaking a government seal/lock on a quarter to store personal belongings.

Despite the petitioner’s denial of charges, a departmental proceeding was conducted wherein the Inquiry Officer held him guilty based solely on documentary evidence without examining any oral witnesses.

Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, issued an order on 16.10.2017 inflicting a major punishment of "two black marks without cumulative effect," which was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 09.11.2018.

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, alleging violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the findings of a departmental inquiry are legally sustainable if the charges are proved solely through documents without the examination of oral witnesses.

2. Whether the failure to examine witnesses to prove the contents of documents vitiates the punishment order in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

The court relied on the principle that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial function where the Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and not a representative of the Department.

The court applied the precedent established in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, which mandates that the contents of documentary evidence must be proved by examining witnesses.

Further, it relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, holding that even in ex-parte inquiries, documents cannot be taken into consideration if they are not proved through oral evidence.

The court also cited Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, reaffirming that a document does not prove itself and requires a competent witness to depose to its authenticity.

The court observed that it is a settled legal position that any document relied upon in a departmental proceeding must be proved by oral evidence.

In the present case, the respondents admitted that no oral witnesses were examined to prove the documentary evidence cited in the charge sheet.

The court reasoned that since the Inquiry Officer failed to record oral testimony to support the charges, the findings were based on material that was "non est" in the eyes of the law.

Applying the "fair play" principles derived from the Indian Evidence Act (though not strictly applicable), the court found that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the punishment order dated 16.10.2017 and the appellate order dated 09.11.2018. The court granted the respondents liberty to proceed fresh against the petitioner from the stage of inquiry, provided the proceedings are concluded within four months and respect due process.