Gujarat High Court
Dy Chairman vs Kanchan Navinkumar Vinayak on 17 December, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1651 of 2017
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11617 of 1994
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
DY CHAIRMAN & ORS.
Versus
KANCHAN NAVINKUMAR VINAYAK
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 2,3,4
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 17/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Page 1 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined Darshan M. Varandani for the respondent.
2.This appeal filed under Letters Patent, 1865 was admitted by order dated 08.08.2019 on condition of Rs.5 lakh to be deposited with the Registry.
3.The appellants - Kandla Port Trust issued an advertisement for recruiting eligible candidates to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 1989. One of the requirements besides the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement was experience of five years in any Government or private undertaking.
4.The respondent was selected for the post of Office Superintendent and was appointed by order dated 09.11.1989.
5.Charge-sheet was issued on 17.07.1992 upon Page 2 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the respondent on the ground of furnishing false experience certificate at the time of his appointment because the respondent had shown an overlapping experience of four months so as to secure the employment. The Statement of Article of Charge reads as under:
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE - I. That Smt. Kanchan N. Vinayak, Office Supdt. at the time of her initial appointment in the said capacity in the KDLB, furnished false information and submitted a false certificate to the effect that she worked as Office incharge in M/s. Triveni Electronics Tube Factory & Co., Delhi for the period from 5/8/1978 to 18/2/1981, as per the details give in the imputation of misconduct in support of article of charge vide Annexure II. She has, therefore, exhibited gross misconduct by her failure not only in maintaining absolute integrity as required under Regulation, 3(1)(i) of the KDLB Employees (Conduct) Regulations, but also behaving in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of the KDLB in violation of Regulation 3(1)(iii) of the aforesaid Regulations.
She has further ignored the warning Page 3 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined No.3 indicated in Annexure III of the Attestation form which was filled by her in her own handwriting and submitted to the office on 2/11/1989, in furnishing false information and hence, liable to be dealt with under the said warning.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE - II.
That the aforesaid Smt. Kanchan N. Vinayak, in filling item No.11(a) of Attestation form in her own handwriting, falsely stated that she worked as Jr. Clerk in Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd, for the period from 5/1/1983 to 25/11/1985 and as a Teacher in Mount Carmel High School, Gandhidham from 29/7/1985 to 4/4/1987, showing an over laping experience of over 4 months to cook up the required experience for the post of Office Supdtt in the KDLB with an ulterior motive to secure employment as Office Supdtt, in KDLB by false declaration.
She has, therefore, exhibited gross misconduct by her failure not only in maintaining absolute integrity as required under Regulations, but also behaving in a manner of unbecoming of an employee of the KDLB in violation of Regulation 3(1)(iii) of the aforesaid Regulations."
6.The Inquiry Officer after conducting the departmental inquiry held that the two charges levelled against the respondent had Page 4 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined been proved. Memorandum along with Inquiry report was provided to the respondent.
7.The disciplinary authority relying upon the inquiry report and other materials placed on record passed the order dated 08.10.1993 imposing major penalty of removal from service upon the respondent.
8.The respondent being dissatisfied with the order passed by the disciplinary authority preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by order dated 12.07.1994. The respondent therefore, preferred writ petition before this court.
9.Learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 05.07.2016 partly allowed the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate authority and Page 5 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined directing the appellants to pay Rs. 5 lakh towards compensation as the respondent would have retired in the year 2018.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Yogi K. Gadhia appearing for the appellants submitted that the respondent was given sufficient opportunity and there is no error committed by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of removal of service which is affirmed by the appellate authority as the complaint was received in writing that the respondent had obtained the employment on the basis of false information and false certificate.
11. It was pointed out that the Vigilance Officer of the appellants-trust carried out a preliminary inquiry which revealed that one Mr. Bahl was not the partner of the firm who had issued the experience certificate to the Page 6 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined respondent and, therefore, the inquiry officer rightly did not permit the writ applicant to examine Mr. Bahl as defence witness.
12. It was submitted that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that without proper identification of a particular person, the inquiry officer has rightly not permitted such person to be examined by the delinquent as defence witness.
13. It was submitted that the act of misconduct on part of the respondent was serious in nature and, therefore, the learned Single Judge while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to arrive at the Page 7 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined conclusion to impose major penalty of removal from service upon the respondent.
14. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge after reproducing the averments made by the appellants in the affidavit-in-reply has failed to consider the same in its proper perspective and has come to the conclusion that the writ petition was maintainable by examining the merits of the matter.
15. It was submitted that learned Single referred to the report of Vigilance Officer and examined the letter from M/s. Triveni Electronics addressed to the appellants wherein information sought for regarding the service of the respondent was clarified. However, such letter was not relied upon in the inquiry case which was not having any date and signature of the author of the Page 8 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined letter was not legible. It was therefore, submitted that learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the findings of the inquiry officer discarding such letter received from M/s. Triveni Electronics confirming the services of the respondent showing overlapping of experience.
16. It was further pointed out that learned Single Judge could not have arrived at the conclusion that the inquiry officer should not have insisted upon the identity of Shri R.J. Bahl for the purpose of examining him as defence witness of the delinquent. It was submitted that Shri R.J. Bahl was not the partner of M/s. Triveni Electronics who had issued the letter and therefore, the inquiry officer has rightly not permitted his cross examination by the respondent delinquent.
17. It was submitted that though the learned Page 9 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined Single Judge has recorded that the reasoning adopted in the impugned order is in the nature of re-appreciation of evidence on record but the same has been wrongly decided to come to the conclusion that findings recorded by the inquiry officer to a considerable extent is perverse without there being any basis for the same.
18. It was submitted that the failure to permit the delinquent to lead evidence by examining the defence witness cannot be termed as breach of procedural provisions of fundamental nature.
19. It was also pointed out that learned Single Judge could not have re-appreciated the evidence on record as the appeal filed by the respondent was already dismissed by the appellate authority confirming the findings of fact arrived at by the inquiry officer and Page 10 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the appellant was given full opportunity adhering to the principles of natural justice during the course of inquiry.
20. It was therefore, submitted that the appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by restoring the order of the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate authority imposing major penalty of removal from service of the respondent and the amount of Rs. 5 lakh deposited by the appellants may be directed to be refunded along with accrued interest.
21. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Darshan M. Varandani appearing for the respondent submitted that no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment and order, whereby after considering the facts on record as well as affidavit-in-reply Page 11 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined filed on behalf of the appellants, learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that disciplinary inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer is to a reasonable extent perverse as the inquiry officer ought not to have insisted to establish the identity of Shri R.J. Bahl for the purpose of examining him as defence witness of the respondent.
22. It was pointed out that the learned Single Judge after considering the evidence on record has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants by hook or crook wanted to remove the respondent from service.
23. It was submitted that learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons to come to the conclusion that writ petition is not maintainable when the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are contrary to the basic elementary principles of service Page 12 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined jurisprudence that a person proceeded against must feel that he or she is being given a fair impartial treatment.
24. It was pointed out that the disciplinary authority relying upon the inquiry officer's report and other material on record, committed a serious error in passing the order of removal from service resulting into victimisation of the respondent in absence of any legal evidence on record. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer that respondent had produced a false experience certificate is not tenable as none of the witnesses during the course of inquiry proceedings had deposed that certificate in question was false certificate.
25. It was submitted that the entire inquiry proceedings stood vitiated on account of Page 13 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined gross violation of principles of natural justice as the inquiry officer has denied the cross examination of Shri R.J. Bahl, one of the partners of M/s. Triveni Electronics to establish that the respondent was employed with the said firm and is working in the office at Ahmedabad.
26. It was submitted that it was pointed out to the inquiry officer that there was dispute between the partners of the said firm and oral submission was made before the Vigilance Officer by one of the partner Shri Kumar that Shri Bahl was not one of the partners of the firm resulting into perfunctory inquiry conducted in a bias manner.
27. It was pointed out that the inquiry officer conducted the proceedings in a hasty manner because by letter dated 11 th/12th September 1991, M/s. Triveni Electronics was Page 14 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined called upon to furnish the information whether the respondent had worked with the firm during the period between 5th August, 1978 and 18th February, 1981 or not which was confirmed by the said firm and inspite of such a written confirmation, the inquiry officer reached to the conclusion that the certificate was not issued by the firm.
28. It was submitted that charge no.2 also cannot be said to have been proved in absence of any legal evidence as the respondent had joined as a Junior Clerk in the Ahmedabad Electricity Company on 5th January, 1983 and thereafter, got married in June, 1985 and was on leave without pay in the Ahmedabad Electricity Company and thereafter, the respondent joined the Mount Carmel High School by tendering the resignation from Ahmedabad Electricity Company on account of personal problems.
Page 15 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined
29. It was therefore, submitted that the learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts and after considering the decisions relied upon by the respondent, has rightly allowed the petition by directing the appellants to pay the lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the respondent.
30. It was therefore, prayed that the appeal may be dismissed by directing the Registry to pay the amount of Rs. 5 lakh with accrued interest to the respondent.
31. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and on perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record, it would be germane to refer to the undisputed facts emerging from the record as under: Page 16 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined
1) The respondent was appointed as Office Superintendent after following the due process of interview and selection on 09.11.1989.
2) Charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner levelling two charges namely, (i) respondent furnished false experience certificate and (ii) respondent had shown four months of experience as overlapping experience with ulterior motive to secure employment.
32. Learned Single Judge relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran reported in 2015(2) SCC 610, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has explained in detail the position of law so far as scope of interference in the matter relating to Page 17 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined disciplinary proceedings is concerned as under:
"12. Despite the well settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a). the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b). the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c). there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d). the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;Page 18 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined
(e). the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f). the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g). the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h). the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i). the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13 Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). reappreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some Page 19 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
14 In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao, many of the above principles have been discussed and it has been concluded thus:
"7. .....The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.Page 20 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."
15 In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao [(1975) 2 SCC 557], the principles have been further discussed at paragraphs 21 to 24, which read as follows:
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two Page 21 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723). First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where Page 22 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board, representing the Union of India, New Delhi v. Niranjan Singh (AIR 1969 SC 966) said that the High Court does not interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority unless the finding is not supported by any evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan Singh case this Court held that the High Court exceeded Page 23 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined its powers in interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the respondent was instrumental in compelling the shutdown of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that the respondent led a group of strikers and compelled them to close down their compressor could not be accepted at its face value. The General Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee on that point. The General Manager accepted the evidence. This Court said that it was open to the General Manager to do so and he was not bound by the conclusion reached by the committee. This Court held that the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority should prevail and the High Court should not have interfered with the conclusion.
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a Page 24 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC
477).
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from the aspect that the High Court does not correct a finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot be scanned by the High Court to justify the conclusion that there is no evidence which would justify the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent did Page 25 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined not make the journey. The Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. The High Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the evidence and then rejected the evidence as no evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari should not do."
16 These principles have been succinctly summedup by the living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491]. To quote the unparalled and inimitable expressions:
"4. ...... in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through caselaw and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence Page 26 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. ....."
17 In all the subsequent decisions of this Court up to the latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v. T. T. Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (AIR 2014 SC 1141), these principles have been consistently followed adding practically nothing more or altering anything.
18 On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following findings:
"Article I was held as proved by the Inquiry authority after evaluating the evidence adduced in the case. Under the circumstances of the case, the evidence relied on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written by Shri P. Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable nexus to the charge framed against him and he did not controvert the contents of the said letter dated 11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he produce any defence witness during the inquiry to Page 27 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left the office on permission. There is nothing to indicate that he was handicapped in producing his defence witness. ...."
19 The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the High Court to re appreciate the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20 Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, Page 28 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values."
33. Thereafter learned Single Judge has considered the fact that after almost a period of three years from the date of appointment, the appellants had entertained the complaint against the respondent for obtaining the appointment by fraud by furnishing false experience certificate and thereafter, on the basis of report of the Vigilance Officer, departmental inquiry was initiated by issuing the charge-sheet. The appellant also issued a letter to M/s. Triveni Electronics to furnish necessary information relating to the services rendered by the respondent. It would therefore, be germane to refer to the findings recorded by Page 29 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the learned Single Judge and justification for re-appreciation of the evidence as under:
"25 It is not the case of the respondents that the letter received by them from the M/s. Triveni Electronics is a forged letter or the contents of the said letter are incorrect. The respondents wanted the information from the M/s. Triveni Electronics and called for the same and in response to the same, the M/s. Triveni Electronics clarified and furnished the necessary information.
26 In the affidavit-in-reply, more particularly, in para - 24 of the same, it has been stated that the reply dated 'Nil' Exhibit:15 of M/s. Triveni Electronics was not relied upon in the inquiry, because the same was dated 'Nil' and the signature of the author of the letter was not legible. The respondents also found fault with the letterhead and the telephone numbers printed on the same. However what is important to note is the conspicuous silence on the part of the respondents that such letter was not received by the office from M/s. Triveni Electronics. If it is not the case of the respondents that such letter was not received, then the onus is upon them to explain how come M/s. Triveni Electronics replied to their letter dated 12th September 1991 Exhibit: 14. It is too much to say that Exhibit: 15 is Page 30 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined also a creation of the writ applicant.
27 I take notice of the fact that in the list of documents produced by the department for the purpose of framing the Article of charge, there is a reference of the acknowledgment dated 'Nil' received from the M/s. Triveni Electronics, New Delhi with the signature of one Shri Ramkumar as well as the letter dated 'Nil' received on 28th October 1991 from the proprietor of M/s.Triveni Electronics. Thus, when the documents were produced and relied upon by the department itself, then it is too much to say that since the letter was not dated, the same was, therefore, eschewed from consideration.
28 Let me now look into the particulars of experience according to the service. The chart is as under:
Sr Name of the firm Designation Period Total . experience From To No .
1 M/s. Triveni Office-in- '5/8/78 '18/2/81 2 yrs. 6 mths
Electronics, charge 13 days
Shahdara, Delhi
2 Food Craft Institute P.A. to the '8/6/82 '4/1/83 - 6 mths 26
Ahmedabad Principal days
3 The Ahmedabad Jr. Clerk '5/1/83 '25/11/8 2 yrs. 10
Electricity Co. Ltd 5 mths 20
Ahmedabad days
4 Mount Carmel High Primary '29/7/85 '4/4/87 1 yr 8 mths
School, Teacher 5 days
Page 31 of 54
Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025
undefined
Gandhidham
Total experience works out to be 7 yrs 8 mths 4 days.
29 The particulars of the experience after deleting the period of overlapping reads as under:
Particulars of Experience (After deleting the period of overlapping of the A.E. Co. Ltd, A'bad & Mount Carmel High School, Gandhidham. The experience with M/s. Triveni Electronics, Delhi is also not taken into account) Sr. Name of Designa- Period Total Period of No the firm tion experi- overlapping From To . ence 1 Food Craft P.A. to '8/6/82 '4/1/83 -7 mths - -
Institute the
Ahmedab Principal
ad
2 The Jr. Clerk '5/1/83 '28/7/8 2 yrs '29/7/85 25/11/85
Ahmedab 5 6 mths
ad
Electricity
Co. Ltd.
Ahmedab
ad
3 Mount Primary '29/7/85 '4/4/87 1 yr '29/7/85 '25/11/8
Carmel Teacher 4 mths 5
High
School,
Gandhidh
am
Total experience works out to be 4 yrs 10 mths.
30 I am of the view that the insistence on the part of the Inquiry Officer to first establish the identity of Shri R.J. Bahl for Page 32 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the purpose of examining him as the defence witness of the delinquent was not reasonable. It appears that by hook or crook, the respondents wanted to remove the writ applicant from service and they did so. If the Inquiry Officer had any doubt as regards the genuineness or the identity of Shri Bahl, the officer appearing on behalf of the respondents in the inquiry could have cross-examined him. His credibility could have been impeached by appropriate cross-
examination, but to turn down the request of the writ applicant to examine Shri Bahl as her defence witness outright was absolutely untenable in law. The Inquiry Officer's duty was clear. He had to take all necessary steps in the matter, reasonably within his power, even though he was not a Court or a full fledged Tribunal with authority to enforce the attendance of the witnesses and he could have refused to summon the defence witness as requested by the delinquent only for special and sufficient reasons, to be recorded by him in writing but not, certainly, on the sole and preliminary ground that the delinquent could not establish the identity of Shri Bahl or to put it in other words, could not adduce sufficient evidence to establish that Shri Bahl was one of the partners of M/s. Triveni Electronics. It cannot be said that the request or the prayer made by the delinquent to permit her to Page 33 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined examine Shri Bahl as her defence witness was not bonafide or was made with some ulterior motive. It was the duty of the Inquiring Officer to take all necessary steps in the matter, even though they may ultimately prove to be unavailing, and he cannot refuse to decline the prayer or request on his own whims and caprice. Even in the course of the examination of Shri Bahl, the department could have asked for the necessary documentary evidence to establish that at some point of time, he was one of the partners of M/s. Triveni Electronics."
34. Learned Single Judge after considering that though re-appreciation of evidence could not have been done while entertaining the writ petition, same was done on the ground that the findings arrived by the disciplinary authority to a reasonable extent was perverse. However, learned Single Judge ought not to have re-appreciated the evidence without arriving at the findings of perversity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority, the only ground on which the Page 34 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined disciplinary inquiry report and decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority affirmed by the appellate authority would lose its substratum as the inquiry officer did not permit the cross examination of Shri R.J. Bahl as defence witness. In such context, learned Single Judge has observed as under:
"35 It is well-settled that the evidence of a defence witness has to be appreciated in the very same manner as the evidence of a witness produced by the department. Equal weight has to be given to the evidence of a defence witness. The Inquiring Officer could have refused to permit the writ applicant to examine Shri Bahl as her defence witness only on the ground that Shri Bahl was not a material witness and his evidence would be irrelevant. On the contrary, the evidence of Shri Bahl, if permitted to have been led, would have made things more clear rather than leaving the entire issue in doubt. I am also not convinced or impressed with the submission canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the request or prayer to examine Shri Bahl as defence witness came at a belated stage.
Page 35 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined 36 As held by the Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala (supra) that even among the procedural provisions, there may be some provisions which are of a fundamental nature in the case of which the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice may not be applicable. Failure to permit the delinquent to lead evidence by examining defence witness is one of the examples of breach of procedural provisions of a fundamental nature. One oral statement made by Rajendrakumar and believed to be a gospel truth sealed the fate of the writ applicant."
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kesoram Cotton Mills Limited vs. Gangadhar reported in AIR 1964 SC 708, has held that inquiry would be vitiated by disregard of rules of natural justice as under:
"13. Coming now to the second term of reference, we find that inquiries were held in the case of the five workmen with whom we are concerned. The respondents however contended that the inquiries were not in accordance with the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the witnesses were not examined-in-chief before the inquiry officer. What actually happened at the inquiries Page 36 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined was that when the witnesses were produced, previously prepared signed statements of the witnesses were read over to them and they were asked whether the statements were correct, and they had signed them. Statements were also read over and explained to the workmen charged and they were then asked to cross- examine the witnesses. No copies of statements of witnesses were supplied to the workmen at any time. The tribunal has held that this procedure followed by the inquiry officer was open to objection and was against the principles of natural justice and that the witnesses should have been examined- in-chief in the presence of the workmen against whom the inquiries were going on. The requirements of principles of natural justice were laid down by this court in Union of India v. T. R. Varma. 1958 SCR 499 :
( (S) AIR 1957 SC 882) where it was observed-
"Rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross- examining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no materials should be relied upon against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. If these rules Page 37 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act was not strictly followed''.
14. This matter was further considered in State of Mysore v. Shivbasappa Shivappa. AIR 1963 SC 375 where the following observations were made:
"When the evidence is oral, normally the examination of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged, who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put of him; and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party, and he is given an opportunity to cross- examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word, and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities, and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. In our opinion they are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged, and Page 38 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them''.
15. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that rules of natural justice are the same whether they apply to inquiries under Art. 311 or to domestic inquiries by managements relating to misconduct by workmen. It may be accepted that rules of natural justice do not change from tribunal to tribunal. Even so the purpose of rules of natural justice is to safeguard the position of the person against whom an inquiry is being conducted so that he is able to meet the charge laid against him properly. Therefore the nature of the inquiry and status of the person against whom the inquiry is being held will have some bearing on what should be the minimum requirements of the rules of natural justice. Where, for example, lawyers are permitted before a tribunal holding an inquiry and the party against whom the inquiry is being held is represented by a lawyer it may be possible to say that a mere reading of the material to be used in the inquiry may sometimes be sufficient:
(see New Prakash Transport Co. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd. 1957 SCR 98 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC
232), but where in a domestic inquiry in an industrial matter lawyers are not permitted, something more than a mere reading to statements to be used will have to be required in order to safeguard the interest of the industrial Page 39 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined worker. Further we can take judicial notice of the fact that many of our industrial workers are illiterate and sometimes even the representatives of labour union may not be present to defend them. In such a case to read over a prepared statement, in a few minutes and then ask the workmen to cross-examine would make a mockery of the opportunity that the rules of natural justice require that the workmen should have to defend themselves. It seems to us therefore that when one is dealing with domestic inquiries in industrial matters, the proper course for the management is to examine the witnesses from the beginning to the end in the presence of the workman at the inquiry itself. Oral examination always takes much longer than a mere reading of a prepared statement on the same length and brings home the evidence more clearly to the person against whom the inquiry is being held. Generally speaking therefore we should expect a domestic inquiry by the management to be of this kind. Even so, we recognise the force of the argument on behalf of the appellant that the main principles of natural justice cannot change from tribunal to tribunal and therefore it may be possible to have another method of conducting a domestic inquiry (though we again repeat that this should not be the rule but the exception) and that is in the manner laid down in Shivabasappa's case, Page 40 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined AIR 1963 SC 375. The minimum that we shall expect where witnesses are not examined from the very beginning at the inquiry in the presence of the person charged is that the person charged should be given a copy of the statements made by the witnesses which are to be used at the inquiry well in advance before the inquiry begins and when we say that the copy of the statements should be given well in advance we mean that it should be given at least two days before the inquiry is to begin. If this is not done and yet the witnesses are not examined-in-chief fully at the inquiry, we do not think that it can be said that principles of natural justice which provide that the person charged should have in adequate opportunity of defending himself are complied with in the case of a domestic inquiry in an industrial matter. In the present case all that had happened was that the prepared statements were read over to the workmen charged and they were asked then and there to cross-examine the witnesses. They were naturally unable to do so and in the circumstances we agree with the tribunal-though for different reasons-that the inquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The order of the tribunal therefore holding that the inquiries were vitiated by disregard of rules of natural justice is correct. We may add however that in spite of the above finding the Page 41 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined tribunal permitted termination of the service of four of these five workmen and reinstated only one. We shall deal with this aspect of the matter further when considering the appeal of the workmen."
36. Similarly, in case of Central Bank of India vs. Prakash Chand Jain reported in AIR 1969 SC 983, it is held that the principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, which is the basic principle which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic inquiry are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"8. However, we find that, on the other ingredients of the first charge, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The Tribunal Page 42 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined gave the reason that these findings were based on hearsay evidence. This view taken by the Tribunal appears to be fully justified. The first and the third elements of the charge relating to payment of the sum of Rs. 30,400 to the respondent by Nand Kishore and of the respondent leaving for Muzaffarnagar in the company of some persons in order to retire the bills drawn by M/s. Gupta Iron Industries, were sought to be proved before the Enquiry Officer by the evidence of the Internal Auditor, N. N. Vazifdar, but the latter could not give any direct evidence, as he was not present at the time when money was paid to the respondent or when the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar. He purported to prove these elements of the change by deposing that a statement was made to him by Nand Kishore to the effect that Nand Kishore had paid Rs. 30,400 to the respondent and that, thereafter, the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar in the company of two persons. The Enquiry Officer accepted this evidence of Vazifdar, but ignored the fact that Vazifdar's evidence was not direct evidence in respect of the elements of the charge sought to be proved, and that Vazifdar was only trying to prove a previous statement of Nand Kishore which, as rightly held by the Tribunal, would amount to hearsay evidence. Nand Kishore himself was also examined as a witness, but, in his evidence, which was admissible as substantive Page 43 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined evidence, he made no statement that this sum of Rs. 30,400 was paid by him to the respondent or that the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar in the company of some persons to retire the bills drawn by M/s. Gupta Iron Industries. In fact, Nand Kishore even went further and denied that he had made any statement to Vazifdar as stated by Vazifdar. The Enquiry Officer was, of course, entitled to form his own opinion and to believe Vazifdar in preference to Nand Kishore; but on this basis, the only finding that the domestic tribunal could record was that Nand Kishore's statement given before him was incorrect and that Nand Kishore had made statements to Vazifdar as deposed by Vazifdar. Those statements made by Nand Kishore to Vazifdar could not, however, become substantive evidence to prove the correctness of these elements forming part of the charge. It is in this connection that importance attaches to the views expressed by this Court in the cases cited above where it was pointed out that a finding of a domestic tribunal may be perverse if it is not supported by any legal evidence. It is true that, in numerous cases, it has been held that domestic tribunals, like an Enquiry Officer, are not bound by the technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act; but it has nowhere been laid down that even substantive rules, which would form part of principles of natural justice, also can be Page 44 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined ignored by the domestic tribunals. The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant Bank was unable to point out any case at all where it may have been held by this Court or by any other Court that a domestic tribunal will be justified in recording its findings on the basis of hearsay evidence without having any direct or circumstantial evidence in support of those findings."
37. In case of State of Punjab vs. Dewan Chuni Lal, Son of Late R.S. Shiv Narain reported in 1970(1) SCC 479, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that regarding the limit of the right to cross examine dissociated from the context in which it was made cannot help the authority and refusal of the right to examine Page 45 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the witness available at the time of inquiry amounts to denial of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"17. The High Court opined that the enquiry officer, Bishamber Das, should not have neglected to summon five officers who made reports about the respondent and were available for examination at the enquiry. They were Chunilal Malhotra, Choudhry Roshan Lal, Deputy Commissioner, Shri Ismail, Shri Holiday and Shri Sant Prakash Singh. According to the High Court the defence of the respondent in the enquiry being that the reports against him were based upon no sufficient date and/or were made partly because of the poisoning of the mind of the District Superintendent of Police by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on communal considerations the only way the respondent could have substantiated his defence version would be by putting questions to the reporting officers if made available during the enquiry. One of the above officers Shamsher Singh was actually examined as the respondent's witness in the suit and his evidence showed that he had left the column for honesty in the report for 1946 blank as he had not seen the respondent at his work. This evidence went to show that if he had been examined by the enquiry officer a portion of the Page 46 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined report taken in consideration against the respondent would have been found to be without substance. Another officer, Chunilal Malhotra though not examined before the enquiry officer was called in defence in the suit. All that he could say was that he had received complaints against the respondent but he did not remember whether they were oral or in writing. The High Court justifiably commented that there was no sufficient reason for the enquiry officer refusing to summon Chunilal Malhotra. On an overall consideration of the facts, the High Court took the view that :
"The approach of the enquiry officer was such that whatever be the testimony of other witnesses, it could not undo the effect of the reports made by the superior officers about the plaintiff."
In other words the enquiry officer shut his mind to the testimony afforded by a large number of witnesses including a Deputy Commissioner, Under Secretary, two Superintendents of Police, a few Magistrates and some Deputy Superintendents of Police who had given evidence about the respondent's reputation and work."
"19 In our view the High Court arrived at the correct conclusion and on the facts of this case it is Page 47 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined impossible to hold that the respondent had been given reasonable opportunity of conducting his defence before the enquiry officer. From what we have stated it is clear that if the enquiry officer had summoned at least those witnesses who were available and who could have thrown some light on the reports made against the respondent the report might well have been different. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that charges based on the reports for the years 1941 and 1942 should not have been levelled against the respondent."
"25. In our opinion the above observation regarding the limit of the right to cross-examine dissociated from the context in which it was made cannot help the appellant. Although the case is governed by Article 311 as it stood prior to its amendment in 1963 the respondent could not be deprived of an effective right to make representation against the action of dismissal. In our opinion refusal of the right to examine witnesses who had made general remarks against his character and were available for examination at the inquiry amounted to denial of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action."
38. In case of State Bank of Patiala vs. Page 48 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined S.K. Sharma reported in 1996 (3) SCC 364, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"11. It is not brought to our notice that the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulation contains provision corresponding to Section 99 C. P. C. or Section 465 Cr. P. C. Does it mean that any and every violation of the regulations renders the enquiry and the punishment void or whether the principle underlying Section 99 C. P. C. and Section 465 Cr. P. C. is applicable in the case of disciplinary proceedings as well. In our opinion, the test in such cases should be one of prejudice, as would be later explained in this judgment. But this statement is subject to a rider. The regulations may contain substantive provisions, e.g., who is the authority competent to impose a particular punishment on a particular employee/officer. Such provisions must be strictly complied with. But there may be any number of procedural provisions which stand on a different footing. We must hasten to add that even among procedural provisions, there may be some provisions which are of a fundamental nature in the case of which the theory of substantial compliance may not be applicable. For example, take a case where a rule expressly provides that the delinquent officer/employee shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence/material in support of his Page 49 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined case after the close of evidence of the other side. If no such opportunity is given at all in spite of a request therefor, it will be difficult to say that the enquiry is not vitiated. But in respect of many procedural provisions, it would be possible to apply the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice, as the case may be. The position can be stated in the following words: (1) Regulations which are of a substantive nature have to be complied with and in case of such provisions, the theory of substantial compliance would not be available. (2) Even among procedural provisions, there may be some provisions of a fundamental nature which have to be complied with and in whose case, the theory of substantial compliance may not be available. (3) In respect of procedural provisions other than of a fundamental nature, the theory of substantial compliance would be available. In such cases, complaint/ objection on this score have to be judged on the touch stone of prejudice, as explained later in this judgment. In other words, the test is: all things taken together whether the delinquent officer/employee had or did not have a fair hearing. We may clarify that which provision falls in which of the aforesaid categories is a matter to be decided in each case having regard to the nature and character of the relevant provision."Page 50 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined
39. After considering the above decision, learned Single Judge has come to the following conclusion:
"44 So far as the charge No.1 is concerned, two witnesses were examined : (i) Shri Bakul J. Mehta and (ii) Shri P.B. Jadeja, Vigilance Inspector. The witness No.1 has not deposed that the experience certificate issued by M/s. Triveni Electronics Limited in favour of the writ applicant for the period th between 5 August 1978 and 18th February 1991 is concocted. All that he has deposed is that he had not received the said certificate on the establishment table in the Kandla Dock Labour Board Secretariat.
45 So far as the Vigilance Inspector is concerned, he has not said a word that the experience certificate issued by the M/s. Triveni Electronics is false. He has deposed that during his visit to Delhi, he met one Shri Kumar at the shop running in the name of the Vikas Electronics. Shri Kumar is said to have informed orally that M/ s. Triveni Electronics came into existence in 1987 and the writ applicant had never worked with the said office. The evidence of Shri P.B. Jadeja deserves to be ignored for the following reasons;
(i) Shri Kumar was not examined in the inquiry.Page 51 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined
(ii) The Vigilance Inspector did not record the statement of Shri Kumar in writing.
(iii) Shri Kumar had some disputes with the person who had issued the certificate.
(iv) The said statement could not be said to have been legally proved by the Presenting Officer.
46 So far as the charge No.2 is concerned, it appears that the writ applicant had joined the Ahmedabad Electricity Company on 5th January 1983. She got married in 1985 and was on 'leave without pay'. She, thereafter, joined the Mount Carmel High School. She, thereafter, resigned from the Ahmedabad th Electricity Company on 25 November 1985. She has also explained that the resignation was tendered at a belated stage, because the same was conditional. She has also explained that after her marriage, her brother decided to join the Ahmedabad Electricity Company, and therefore, she remained on 'leave without pay' for the disputed period and tendered her resignation only after her brother joined the Ahmedabad Electricity Company. The statement of facts that the writ applicant resigned on 25th November 1985. The Ahmedabad Electricity Company has issued a certificate which is on record for the period between 5th January 1983 and 25th November 1985. The writ applicant was on leave for the disputed period, as confirmed by Page 52 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined the certificate issued by the Ahmedabad Electricity Company Exhibit: 18 and the certificate issued by the Mount Carmel High School Exhibit: 11. The Inquiry Officer has very conveniently ignored the same stating that everything produced by the writ applicant is false."
40. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 to highlight that inquiry officer was supposed to apply the rule of natural justice and in absence thereof, entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court to consider whether the Constitutional requirement of Article 311(2) have been satisfied or not.
41. In view of above analysis done by learned Single Judge of the evidence on record, denial of cross examination of Shri R.J.Bahl by the inquiry officer has become fatal to the inquiry as elementary principle Page 53 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1651/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025 undefined of service jurisprudence has been violated as the respondent has not been given a fair impartial treatment by the appellants.
42. We therefore, concur with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge and do not find any ground to interfere with the same. The appeal therefore, is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
43. Registry is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5 lakh with accrued interest to the respondent after due verification by issuing Account Payee cheque in the name of the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 54 of 54 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Tue Dec 23 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 24 20:31:01 IST 2025