The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 01 of 2023 ---- Shiv Kishor son of Ram Jatan Ram, Cooperative Extension Officer, Office of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chaibasa, PS Chaibasa, Muffasil, District Singhbhum (West), permanent R/o 80, Jheelganj, Satbal, PO PS & District Gaya. … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Co-operative Societies, at present residing at Ayodhya Enclave, Kokar Road, Post Deepatoli, Police Station Deepa Toli, District Ranchi. 3. Sri Jitendra Kumar, Managing Director, Jharkhand State Co- operative Lac Marketing (Federation), Ranchi, at present residing at Home No.35, Ashok Nagar, Post Ashok Nagar, Gate No.1, Police Station Argora, District Ranchi. 4. The Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank, Hazaribagh. 5. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Koderma. 6. Jharkhand State Co-operative Bank, its Chief Executive Officer, Officiating from 3rd Floor, Marketing Board Building, Itki Road, Post Hehal, Police Station Itki, District Ranchi. through 7. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi. … Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Appellant: For the Respondents: Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ---- Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate 6/ 13.07.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
O R D E R 1. The writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No.324 of 2007, has approached this Court by filing this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. The writ petitioner-appellant was posted as Block Co-operative Extension Officer, Koderma in the year 2001 and he was deputed as Branch Manager, District Central Co-operative Bank, Koderma Branch vide order contained in Memo No.303 dated 17.02.2003. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner-appellant vide memo No.2441 dated 24.12.2004 and he was served with a chargesheet wherein four charges were levelled against him. In the said Departmental Proceeding, the writ petitioner- appellant was found guilty of the charges framed, thus, he was punished vide order dated 10.08.2006. The quantum of punishment imposed was as follows:- -: 2 :- i. Pay of the appellant was fixed on the lowest scale of pay; ii. No monetary benefits will be given for the suspension period except for the subsistence allowances; iii. The appellant will not be allowed to handle any independent charge. 3. Challenging the said order of punishment, the writ petitioner- appellant had preferred the writ petition, which was dismissed and, thus, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant, in course of argument, had raised only one point. She submitted that the finding guilt of the appellant in the Departmental Proceeding is based on documents, but, those documents were not proved as per law. She submits that no person was examined as a witness before the Enquiry Officer to prove those documents, thus, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, it can be said that without any evidence, appellant has been punished. As per her, learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid principle of law that the documents need to be proved and in absence of proof, the entire enquiry is vitiated. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the issue that no witnesses were examined in this case was raised by the writ petitioner-appellant and the learned Single Judge has also dealt with the said issue from paragraph 39 of the judgment, wherein the learned Single Judge has given a finding that no oral evidence has been adduced from either side and there was no formal marking of documents as exhibits. When the aforesaid finding has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge, only on the ground that both the parties have relied upon the documents cannot be a ground to bypass the settled principle of law, which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). 5. To counter the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documents, which were produced before the Enquiry Officer by the Department were relied upon by the appellant and at no point of time, petitioner raised any grievance in relation to non-examination of any witness, thus, at this stage, he cannot take the aforesaid plea. -: 3 :- 6. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the records. The scope of interference in a Departmental Proceeding in the writ of certiorari is very limited. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court to re-apprise the evidence. Serious error of law and perversity can be looked into while exercising jurisdiction of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The ground taken by the writ petitioner-appellant is that without examining any witness, the documents could not have been relied upon and looked into by the Enquiry Officer. The issue has now been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Roop Singh Negi, at paragraph 14 has held as follows: - 14. Indisputably, 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. 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 treated as evidence. 8. Thus, from the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is clear that the documents need to be proved, formally, for taking the same into evidence in a Departmental Enquiry also. The documents, which were relevant in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) was the First Information Report. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that those documents also need to be proved before the Enquiry Officer. In the proceeding involved here, the documents are the records of the bank, but, admittedly, as no witnesses came up to depose, the documents were not exhibited. Thus, we are of the opinion that this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). 9. Further, while we go through the impugned judgment, we find that in paragraph 6, the writ petitioner had taken a plea that the punishment was -: 4 :- imposed on the basis of documents, but, no document was exhibited and no witness was examined, thus, the same is against the settled principle of law. While dealing with the aforesaid issue, in paragraph 39, learned Single Judge has found that no oral evidence has been adduced from either side, consequentially, there has been no formal marking of any of the documents as exhibits, but proceeded on the ground that both the parties have relied upon the documents without any objection. 10. In terms of Roop Singh Negi (supra), documents have to be marked as exhibits. Even to mark a document on admission also oral evidence has to be led. 11. Considering the aforesaid, we are inclined to allow this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, by setting aside the judgment dated 10.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.324 of 2007. We do hereby set aside the punishment order dated 10.08.2006 and remand the matter to the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry after taking evidence in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and conclude the proceeding within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)