Judgment · Supreme Court

Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. A departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. E The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon , taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been 1 treated as evidence. The only basic evidence whereupon G reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police · station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said H !F I D r '!-- _ •, 1478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R. A confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect· evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the 8 Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. [Para 10] (1485-G-H; 1486-A-E]

1.2. The order of the disciplinary authority as also the C appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the ·orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the .~confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal D Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act E may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but . the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the - Enquiry Officer was based on mere ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer F apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. The appellant is accordingly directed to be re-instated with full back wages. [Paras 17 and 18] (1492- G C-H] Union of India vs. H.S. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718; Moni Shankar v. Union of India and Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 484; Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. (2006) 4 sec 713; M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India & ors. H (2006) 5 SCC 88 and Jasbir Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank & ROOP SINGH NEGI v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

#1479. ors. (2007) 1 sec 566, relied on.