Braj Nandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. 2002 was wholly uncalled for to punish the respondents merely because further queries may not have been answered. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the inquiry report also. The learned single judge has allowed the writ application on…
Judgment
Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and the explanation for the delay, we allow the I.A. and proceed to take up the appeal for disposal on merits. The present appeal arises from order dated
30.4.2012 allowing C.W.J.C. No.11357/05 setting aside the order of dismissal dated 7.5.2005. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the charges framed against the respondent was for having secured promotion on basis of a forged matriculation certificate of the Patna High Court LPA No.331 of 2013 (7) dt.12-08-2013 2 year 1969 and having interpolated his date of birth on that basis from 9. 4. 1948 to 15. 5. 1959. The respondent had submitted another certificate for having passed Madhyama in 1979 from the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga University. The second qualification obtained within a period of 10 years was considered suspicious. The inquiry officer returned a finding of guilt. The disciplinary authority after following procedures ordered dismissal on 7. 5. 2005. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of dismissal was based on suspicion without a positive finding of guilt. The respondent had never submitted any matriculation certificate. The service book was a document in custody of the appellants. If there were any corrections in the same regarding date of birth and that too unsigned, it was for the appellants to explain the circumstances of how it came to be done. In response to a departmental inquiry dated 28. 5. 2002 and 9. 6. 2002, the University on 4. 10. 2002 had confirmed the genuineness of the Madhyama certificate issued in the year 1979 which he passed in the 2nd division. The Superintending Engineer opined that the confirmation of the University dated 4. 10. 2002 having been received after the submission of the inquiry report on 16. 7. 2002, the matter may be got clarified from the examination controller. The latter instead of clarifying doubts made further queries with regard to production of original marks sheet/admit card etc. In the Patna High Court LPA No.331 of 2013 (7) dt.12-08-2013 3 circumstances the Chief Engineer doubting the report dated 4.
2002 was wholly uncalled for to punish the respondents merely because further queries may not have been answered. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the inquiry report also. The learned single judge has allowed the writ application on the premise that absence of subsequent the confirmation from the Examination Controller could not take away the genuineness and veracity of the Madhyama certificate confirmed earlier by the University on 4. 10.2002. We find no reason to differ with the same and interfere with the order under appeal both for the aforesaid reason and the additional reasons that the set out hereinafter. It is settled law that in a departmental proceeding suspicion cannot replace proof. In (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank) it was observed as follows :- “23.A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible.
The provisions of the Evidence Act 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 merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer 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.” In Roop Singh Negi [supra) it has been explained that a Patna High Court LPA No.331 of 2013 (7) dt.12-08-2013 4 departmental inquiry is a quasi judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer acts in the capacity of a judge. The charges have to be proved by the presenting officer on behalf of the department either from documentary evidence or oral witnesses as the case may be. After the prosecution has led its evidence, the delinquent is required to lead its rebuttal.
The enquiry officer is then required to assess the materials placed before him and come to his own conclusions. The enquiry officer is therefore a neutral person and cannot act as the representative of the department donning the mantle of judge and executioner both. It is apparent from the enquiry report that no presenting officer was appointed. The enquiry officer proceeded to consider the defence of the delinquent on basis of the charges. Any weakness in the defence cannot lend strength to the charges which had first to be first proved on their own metal. Instead of the presenting officer cross-examining the respondent, the enquiry officer assumed that role. Materials with regard to the alleged interpolation in the date of birth was collected outside the departmental inquiry by calling for a report from the Executive Engineer without an opportunity of rebuttal to the respondent or opportunity to cross examine the Executive Engineer.
Operative part
No departmental witness appeared to depose. Any interpolation in the service book attributed to the respondent had to be proved by the department as it is a document normally in possession of the employer alone. The Patna High Court LPA No.331 of 2013 (7) dt.12-08-2013 5 finding of the enquiry officer that since the alleged interpolation the service book was unsigned answerability must rest with the respondent is perverse to our understanding. The conclusion of the enquiry officer that failure of the Examination Controller to submit confirmation order for with regard to the Madhyama certificate makes it suspicious is not sustainable for reasons already discussed by us hereinabove that suspicion cannot replace proof. The disciplinary authority in the order of dismissal notices the confirmation and authenticity of the Madhyama certificate received from the University dated 4. 10. 2002 but ignoring the same without any explanation for not accepting it proceeds on the premise for the absence of a re- confirmation to hold it as suspicious. The manner in which the departmental proceeding itself was held renders it completely bad in law as contrary to service jurisprudence. We therefore find no merit in this appeal for the additional reasons given by us. The appeal is dismissed. (Navin Sinha, J) (Vikash Jain, J) K.C.jha/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 12 Aug 2013. The bench was NAVIN SINHA, VIKASH JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.