Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.162/1999 vs The District Collector (Land Revenue) on 11 March, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
[
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.162/1999 Ram Pratap Manda Versus The District Collector (Land Revenue), Sriganganagar & Anr.
Date of order : 11.3.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Mr.HS Sidhu, for the petitioner.
Mr.Sunil Joshi, Asstt. to AAG for the respondents.
<><><> By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order (Annex.P/11) dated 24.12.1996 whereby, after holding a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Service) Rules, the disciplinary authority of the petitioner held him guilty of the charges and imposed upon him, a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect and the order (Annex.P/13) dated 8.6.1998 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned orders on the ground that the Inquiry Officer whilst conducting the inquiry did not provide the petitioner with the copies of the relied upon documents nor was the petitioner permitted to inspect the [ documents. Furthermore, no evidence whatsoever was led by the department in the inquiry proceedings and thus, as per him, the department failed to prove the charges for lack of evidence. He relies on the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Amrit Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1981 WLN (UC) 457 and that of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009)2 SCC 570 and urges that as no oral evidence was led to prove the charges, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and as a consequence by the disciplinary authority are based on no evidence and thus, the inquiry proceedings are totally vitiated and liable to be quashed. He thus, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted.
Per contra, Shri Sunil Joshi learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contends that the documents as available in the inquiry report are clearly indicative of the fact that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition does not deserve acceptance.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned orders as well as the material available on record.
Upon being put a pertinent query, Shri Joshi learned [ counsel for the respondents candidly conceded that no evidence was led by the department in the inquiry conducted against the petitioner. Upon going through the inquiry report and the disciplinary authority's order, it is evident that the department did not lead any evidence to substantiate and prove the charges. On the contrary, the petitioner examined six witnesses in support of his defence. The inquiry was being conducted under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. As per Rule 16(7) of the CCA Rules, whenever a disciplinary inquiry is proposed to be held against an employee under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, recording of evidence is mandatory. Mere filing of the documents would not bring them within the purview of evidence as per the Evidence Act. A party, who proposes to prove its case is required to do so by leading evidence. Evidence can either be oral or documentary. Whenever a document is purported to be proved, the same has to be tendered in evidence by a witness. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrit Lal (supra) held that documents available on the record of inquiry proceedings have to be proved by leading evidence if the department proposes to rely on the same. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that mere production of documents during the course of a department inquiry is not sufficient. Contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. As admittedly, no evidence [ was led by the department in support of the charges, the impugned orders whereby the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner and the order passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal against the order imposing penalty was dismissed, are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the procedure of inquiry stipulated under the CCA Rules.
As a result, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders (Annex.P/11) dated 24.12.1996 and (Annex.P/13) dated 8.6.1998 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.
No order as to costs.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/tarun/