Dr. Jagat Baraik, aged about 60 years, son of Sri Agnu Baraik, resident of v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3515 of 2018 ------- Dr. Jagat Baraik, aged about 60 years, son of Sri Agnu Baraik, resident of PHC Campus, Kurdeg, P.O & P.S Kurdeg, District-Simdega. Versus …… Petitioner(s) 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Nepal House, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Joint Secretary, Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Nepal House, P.O & P.S Doranda, District Ranchi. -------- …… Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH -------- For the Petitioner(s) For the Resp.-State : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to G.P-II 13/ Dated 17.10.2024 Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the notification issued vide Memo No. 279(18) dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure-8), whereby and wherein, the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of censure as well as withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. 2. Petitioner was working as In-charge Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Kurdeg. While he was posted at Kurdeg, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him, alleging therein that he had disobeyed the order of his superiors. Other charges were also levelled against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer had not produced any witnesses to prove the charges against him, rather only some documents were produced during the enquiry, which were not officially brought on record by examining any witnesses. 4. Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, learned A.C to G.P-II has appeared on behalf of the respondents conceded that no witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National -2- Bank & Ors, reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 14. In that case also, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the disadvantages of an employer is that such acts are committed in secrecy and in conspiracy with the person affected by the accident, stating: “.. No such finding has been arrived at even in the disciplinary proceedings nor any charge was made out as against the appellant in that behalf. He had no occasion to have his say thereupon. Indisputably, the writ court will bear in mind the distinction between some evidence or no evidence but the question which was required to be posed and necessary should have been as to whether some evidence adduced would lead to the conclusion as regard the guilt of the delinquent officer or not. The evidence adduced on behalf of the management must have nexus with the charges. The Enquiry Officer cannot base his findings on mere hypothesis. Mere ipso dixit on his part cannot be a substitute of evidence. The findings of the learned Single Judge to the effect that ‘it is established with the conscience (sic) of the Court reasonably formulated by an Enquiry Officer then in the eventuality’ may not be fully correct inasmuch as the Court while exercising its power of judicial review should also apply its mind as to whether sufficient material had been brought on record to sustain the findings. The conscience of a court may not have much role to play. It is unfortunate that the learned Single Judge did not at all deliberate on the contentions raised by the appellant. Discussion on the materials available on record for the purpose of applying the legal principles was imperative. The Division Bench of the High Court also committed the same error.” 15. Yet again in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India & ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88, this Court held: “… Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Rajit Singh passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2049-2050 of 2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 8. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents mentioned in the chargesheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and / or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage -3- of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case. In the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, which was also pressed into service on behalf of the appellants before the High Court, it is observed in paragraph 16 as under:- “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S.Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30]).” 7. It is now settled principle of law that in the departmental proceeding, a person cannot be held guilt only by producing documents without examining any witnesses. It is the settled principle of law that any document has to be officially brought on record by examining the witnesses to prove the contents of the documents, in absence of which, the contents of the documents cannot be read in evidence. However, this anomaly in departmental proceeding will not vitiate the entire departmental proceeding. It has to recommence from the stage where the latches were committed. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judicial pronouncements, the impugned notification issued vide Memo No. 279(18) dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure-8) is hereby quashed. 9. The matter is remanded back to the respondents to reinitiate the departmental proceeding in accordance with law. 10. This writ application is accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. BS/- (Ambuj Nath, J.)