Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prakash Chand vs India Tourism Development Corporation on 4 December, 2023
(OA No.1143-2022)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1143/2022
Reserved on :21.11.2023
Pronounced on :04.12.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Prakash Chand
House No.1057, Sector-21-C,
Faridabad (Haryana-121001.
Worked as Group 'C' Jr.Asstt. (Store),
GD.II T.No.4572, with the Ashoka Hotel (ITDC),
New Delhi. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Bal Kishan)
Versus
1. Indian Tourism and Development
Corporation (ITDC), Scope Complex,
6th Floor, Core 8,7. Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
(Through its Managing Director)
2. The Ashoka Hotel (ITDC),
50-B, Diplomatic Enclave,
Chankya Puri, New Delhi-110021.
(Through its General Manager). ...Respondents
(By Advocate:Shri Ujjawal K.Jha)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
"(i) Call for the records and quash the
impugned 'charge memorandum' vide the
(OA No.1143-2022)
(2)
Ref.No.PB-73(165)/4572 dated 24.06.2019
Annexure-A-1 (impugned), and also quash the 'enquiry report vide the Ref.No.PB-
73(165)/4572 dated 20.07.2021 Annexure-A-2 (impugned), and 'penalty order' furnished vide the Ref.No.PB-73(165)/4572 dated 16.08.2021 Annexure-A-3 (impugned), 'Appellate order' dated 07.10.2021 Annexure-A-4 (impugned), and order all consequential benefits.
(ii) Order exemplary cost against respondents and in favour of the Applicant.
(iii) May also pass any further order(s), directions as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
2. The case, in brief, as mentioned in the OA is that the applicant joined the service under respondent on 01.09.1990 after having gone through the due selection process devised by respondent, which included Police verification and checking of credentials.
3. Having served the respondent for nearly 29 years the applicant was served a 'charge sheet' [show cause notice] Ref.No. PB-73(165)/4572 dated 24.06.2019 (Impugned) for having furnished a false matriculation certificate at the time of recruitment, without any complaint from any quarter on this account.
4. The applicant was placed under suspension on 11.06.2019 vide the Ref.No.PB-73(165)/4572 dated 11.06.2019.
(OA No.1143-2022) (3)
5. The applicant furnished a reply dated 06.08.2021 to charge sheet/Show Cause Notice.
6. It is contended in the OA that the respondent without even processing/referring to the submissions of the applicant advanced in his reply dated 06.08.2021 in terms of ratio laid down in W.P.(C).3676/2013 titled as Dr. Sahdev Singh Vs Union of India, mechanically issued the order of appointment of enquiry officer and presenting officer vide Ref.No. PB-73(165)/4572 dated 16.08.2019, leaving the applicant in the disadvantage of not knowing in what respect his reply was deficient.
7. On 10.02.2020, applicant made complaint against the, Inquiry Officer who was proceeding in a most closed manner, circumventing the entire procedure, leaving the applicant in a most helpless position to put an effective defence. It was specifically contended before the I.O by the applicant that there was no valid charge sheet containing integral part of charge memorandum with a "List of witnesses/and documents" proposed to be tried and relied upon during the course of departmental proceedings. But no heed was paid.
(OA No.1143-2022) (4)
8. It is averred that the Daily order sheets' dated 21.10.2019 to 03.03.2021 also shows that the very course of inquiry was arbitrary wherein witnesses with no relevance to charge also participated. In fact even whatever was produced during course of inquiry remained annexures only and cannot be called 'exhibits'.
9. Even the alleged fake matriculation was neither made part of 'charge memorandum' nor was exhibited by the Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry. Further, no opportunity was afforded to inspect the originals as provided under the law and despite persistent request from the applicant, the source of complaint was also not disclosed to the complainant.
10. Though there was no list of documents with the so called charge sheet/show cause notice dated 24.06.2019, nevertheless some documents were relied upon by the respondents but the authors of true documents were never called to prove them.
11. Moreover, no mandatory exploratory questions were asked by Inquiry officer on the possible grounds on which he could be held guilty as envisaged in law and upheld by (OA No.1143-2022) (5) the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ministry of Finance vs. S.B Ramesh (1998) (3) SCC 227.
12. During the course of inquiry, no witness was summoned to establish the veracity of 'educational certificate' issued by the concerned school or board where from the applicant passed the matriculation, especially in view of the fact that some documents from school/board confirms that he possessed valid qualification.
13. The Presenting Officer (PO) vide Ref.No. PB- 73(165)/4572 dated 13.03.2021 submitted his prosecution resume in which he did not present or discuss any document of evidentiary value except repeating the charges.
14. The applicant submitted his 'Defence Resume' (DR) dated 29.03.2021 wherein the applicant raised many a potential questions of facts as well as law which were pleaded before the Disciplinary Authority as well as Inquiry Officer. Neither the defence raised was discussed nor referred to while arriving at the harsh order of penalty imposed on the applicant.
15. It has been specifically contended in the OA that 'onus' is not shifted on the applicant of disproving a charge especially when same is not proved on the strength of (OA No.1143-2022) (6) documentary evidences. Mere suspicion, however, grave, can never form basis of departmental action. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal in catena of cases, including Central Bank of India Ltd vs Prakash Chand Jain (1969) I SCR 735 and Kuldeep Singh Vs Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC
10.
16. It is also submitted that an Enquiry Report' dated 20.07.2021 (Impugned), without reflecting/discussing or judicious considerations on the points raised during course of inquiry and defence resume, was submitted. Further, without any second show cause notice as enunciated in the law and without obtaining any comments on the enquiry report, the order of penalty dated 16.08.2021 (Impugned) was issued.
17. The applicant submitted a detailed appeal raising several defences and points of consideration of facts as well as law as contained in the appeal dated 13.09.2021. But the Appellate Authority too vide Ref.No. VP(H)/20-21/Disc/1270 dated 07.10.2021 [Impugned] passed a cryptic and non- reasoned order affirming the order of penalty.
(OA No.1143-2022) (7)
18. The respondents through their counter reply have stated that there was adequate evidence against the applicant before the Enquiry officer and the case against the delinquent officer was not of "No evidence" and therefore having sufficient evidence against him he was found guilty by the Enquiry officer after discussing the evidence in detail and then the finding was given that the charges are established.
19. It is contended that the enquiry officer has followed the Principle of Natural Justice and gave sufficient opportunities to the Applicant. The applicant duly participated in the inquiry proceedings and was given the opportunity to defend his case. The Inquiry Authority conducted the departmental inquiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice and after duly complying with the rules and regulations and on the basis of the materials before him submitted enquiry report.
20. It is also submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and the enquiry report and the punishment has been given after considering relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials may reasonably (OA No.1143-2022) (8) support the conclusion that the officer is guilty. It is submitted that the enquiry has been properly held and therefore the question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before this Tribunal. It is reiterated that the applicant was found guilty by the enquiry officer after considering all the relevant materials and the reviewing authority was satisfied with the finding of the enquiry and thereafter has imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service.
21. It is also averred through the counter reply that the inquiry was conducted on charges of misconduct by a competent officer and the rules of natural justice were complied with.
22. The findings or conclusions were based on evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry had jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion.
23. It is asserted by the respondents that the Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence. Moreover, there was no violation of any statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry. Since the rules and procedures have been (OA No.1143-2022) (9) complied with by the respondents taking into consideration the nature of the charges levelled against the applicant which have been held proved, the penalty imposed on him is justified and the same is not either illegal or arbitrary to justify any interference in the matter. The respondent in this regard relies upon the following judgments:
i) Union of India Vs Parma Nand (1989) 2 SCC 177.
ii) B.C.Chaturvedi vs Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749,
iii) Shriji Vidyalaya and another Vs Patel Anil Kumar (1998) 9 SCC 561
iv) State Of Rajasthan And Anr Vs Mohammed Ayub Naz (2006) 1 SCC 589.
24. Reiterating the facts, it has been submitted by the respondents that a complaint was received by Vigilance department of ITDC in the year 2018 that the educational certificate of class 10 submitted by Sh. Prakash Chand at the time of his recruitment was fake. Accordingly, after approval from CVO, an investigation was carried out by Ms. Neha Singh, Mgr (V-HO) to find out the factual position. In her investigation, she received the reply from Principal Sarvodaya Kisan Inter College Jawali, Ghaziabad (UP), dated:28.11.2018 which clearly stated that Sh. Prakash Chand S/o Sh.Babu Lal, Roll No. 1052797 appeared in the (OA No.1143-2022) (10) high school exam in 1986 as a private candidate and as per the records the student had failed in four subjects. The same was also confirmed by office of Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Regional Office Merrut vide letter No.2159 dated 04.01.2019 in which it was clearly mentioned that Sh. Prakash Chand S/o Sh.Babu Lal, Roll-No. 1052797 appeared in the high school exam in the year 1986 and as per the records he had failed.
25. It is submitted that it is clear from the above, that he had failed in the Matric class and not eligible to apply for the post of Houseman. He had submitted false Matric certificate for educational qualification which was the basic requirement for the post as circulated by respondents at the time of recruitment.
26. We have perused the pleadings on record and also heard Shri Bal Kishan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ujjawal K.Jha, learned counsel for the respondents including the written submissions made by both the parties. In the written submissions as well as during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the grounds taken in the OA to submit that 'show cause notice' (S.16 (I) to penalty conspicuously S.16 (ii) (Certified (OA No.1143-2022) (11) Standing Orders of Ashoka Hotel) was never complied with, and charge memorandum was never issued. Further, it is submitted that the order of penalty is totally cryptic and non-speaking on points on the basis of which applicant has been held guilty, warranting the punishment to be quashed. It is also submitted that during the course of inquiry, the original documents were neither exhibited before Inquiry Officer nor the same allowed to be inspected. Thus, this is a case of 'no evidence' against the applicant and the order of penalty is based purely on conjectures and surmises. The I.O. or the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority took no note of their own document (GM- Vigilance/Dy.No.6970) wherein Principal had stated that the applicant had passed with second division. But instead come to the erroneous conclusion of holding the charge as proved against the applicant, and in the end holding him guilty. Reliance is placed on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi & amp;
Ors. (1991 (2) SCC 716 and Mangal Singh vs Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh (1975) I SLR 500, in this regard to claim that the pivotal question of fact is fake matriculation' certificate, which was not put on examination by presenting any witness from school/board. The non-
(OA No.1143-2022) (12) examination of witness clearly shows that the charge remained unproved. It is also averred that the charge-memo which did not have any names of witnesses through whom the same were sought to be proved is illegal and cannot be allowed as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India VS Shameem Akhtar MANU/DE/3867/2015 and Union of India Vs Ritu Chaudhary 2019 LAWPACK(Del) 73567. Placing reliance on B.B.Gupta Vs Union of India (1996) 32 ACT 563 (Chand), it is argued that as in the instant case without any complaint the charge sheet was slapped on applicant after nearly 29 years when his credentials had already been checked by respondent during the process of recruitment/selection. The act of illegal course of inquiry was also complained to I.O. and it was specifically requested to stop the inquiry but I.O proceeded in the partisan and biased manner. Inquiry by a biased I.O, being vitiated, is liable to be quashed, it is argued.
27. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has refuted these grounds and reiterated that the enquiry officer has followed the principle of natural justice and gave sufficient opportunities to the applicant. The applicant duly participated in the inquiry proceedings and (OA No.1143-2022) (13) was given the opportunity to defend his case. The show cause notice and charge memorandum under the rules as required were issued.
28. It is submitted that CCS rule is not applicable to the ITDC employees. It is having its own rules Certified Standing Order of Ashoka Hotel, which was circulated by the office of Regional Labour Commissioner to all concerned vide ND.37(9)98.P.A. dated 23.06.2023. Section 15 as applicable to the petitioner provides punishment, both minor and major, if an employee is found guilty of misconduct. The major punishment includes Termination of service and Dismissal from service. Section 16 provides procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct. it is submitted that the aforesaid rule has been duly complied with. The employee was given opportunity to explain his case. Since a punishment under Sub-Section IV to VIII of Section 15 above has proposed to be awarded, the workman concerned was served with a charge sheet dated 24.06.2019 on completion of inquiry a show cause notice was issued as per the relevant provision of Section 16.
29. It is submitted that the letters sent by the authority to the effect that the mark sheet submitted by the employee was fake as he had failed in the examination, are the official documents (OA No.1143-2022) (14) pertaining to his result and the said documents were proved by the evidence of the management during the departmental enquiry. Therefore, it was not necessary that the author of the document had to be examined to prove the document. It is not necessary that for each documents it is only the maker to prove about the veracity of the documents. Moreover, the departmental agencies are not governed strictly as per the Evidence Act and as the Certified Standing Order of Ashoka Hotel does not have any rule to provide that the charge memo will have the names of the witnesses/list of documents, the applicant was given all the opportunities to cross examine the management witness and the same was accordingly done by the employee and hence the judgment of Shameem Akhtar (supra) is not applicable in the present case.
30. The learned counsel also contends that there was no delay in enquiry as it was initiated soon after the complaint was received. The enquiry officer was unbiased and only because the enquiry report is against the applicant, it cannot be submitted that the enquiry officer was biased.
31. It is submitted that in the disciplinary proceeding, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and based on the enquiry report the punishment (OA No.1143-2022) (15) has been given after considering relevant materials which support the conclusion that the officer is guilty.
32. It is reiterated that matriculation certificate was verified from the appropriate authority and after verification records were obtained from the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh Board and from the Principal Sarvodaya Kisan Inter College, Jawali, Ghaziabad, it was found that he had submitted a false matriculation certificate of date of birth as well as for educational qualification at the time of recruitment in the Ashok Hotel, failing the basic criteria for the post of Houseman.
33. In support, the reliance is placed on the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Shailendra Singh v/s. The Union of India, June 12, 2023 wherein it was observed as under:
"The Supreme Court in several occasions has observed that when a person secured appointment on the basis of forged mark-sheet or certificate then his appointment is considered to be a fraudulent appointment. Such an appointment is illegal void abinitio, therefore, holding the disciplinary proceeding envisaged under Article 311 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time:
6/14/2023 3:27:43 PM of Constitution of India or under any disciplinary rules is not required. The fact which goes to the root of the matter is that the mark- sheets used by the petitioner to get the appointment were fake and he could have produced the original (OA No.1143-2022) (16) mark-sheets to substantiate that the allegations made against him are not correct but that has not been done."
34. Since one of the main grounds taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his claim is that the requisite procedure under Section 16(2) was not complied with, we deem it appropriate to go through Certified Standing Orders (Modified) of Ashok Hotel, New Delhi, India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. Of 2003. Section 15 of the said orders provides punishments for misconduct, including both minor and major punishments, which are relevant, are as follows:
"15: PUNISHMENTS FOR MISCONDUCT.
An employee found guilty of misconduct may be given any of the following punishments:
MINOR PUNISHMENT I. Warning.
II. Fine (not exceeding 3 Paisa for each rupee of the basic salary).
III. Recovery to the full extent of the actual amount of loss caused to the Company."
MAJOR PUNISHMENT IV. Withholding of increments for any specific period with or without cumulative effect.
V. Demotion to a junior post, lower grade, lower place in the scale of pay or to a lower scale of pay. VI. Termination of service.
VII. Discharge from service.
VIII. Dismissal from service.
(OA No.1143-2022) (17)
35. Section 16 (I) (II) & (III) of the said order provide the procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct reads as follows:
I. None of punishments mentioned in Section 15 above will be enforced without first giving the employee an opportunity to explain his case. A show cause notice will, therefore. invariably be served on him before award of any of these punishments.
II. If a punishment under Sub-Section IV to VIII of Section 15 above is to be awarded, the workman concerned should be served with a charge sheet within 30 days and enquiry will be completed within 6 months from the date of issuing charge sheet and an enquiry as set out in sub-para III below must be held.
III. An employee against whom an enquiry has to be held shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the charges against him indicating therein the nature of offence as lard down in any of the sub-sections of Section 14 above and the full particulars thereof. The charge-sheet will invariably end up by calling upon the employee to give his explanation in writing by a stipulated date. If his reply is not considered satisfactory by the departmental head concerned an enquiry shall be held by an officer/employer not lower in status than the accused. During this enquiry the accused will be given all reasonable facilities to defend himself. Except for reasons to be recorded in writing by the officer holding the enquiry the accused shall be permitted to produce witnesses on whose evidence the charge rests. The enquiry officer will also sum up the evidence as recorded by him but will not record his opinion or give recommendation. The competent punishing authority, will consider the report of the enquiry and in case he feels that the case will require any of the punishment mentioned in sub-section IV to VIII of section 15 above, he will arrange for a show cause notice and by granting a personal interview wherever the competent authority considers this necessary, the case will be disposed of (OA No.1143-2022) (18) either by exonerating the accused or by awarding him any of the punishments mentioned in section 15 above. In the enquiry, the workman shall be entitled to appear in person or to be represented by an office bearer of a trade union of which he is a member.
If the charged workman fails to send reply to the charge sheet or the show cause notice by the stipulated time or if he fails to be present at enquiry or otherwise decides not to co-operate, the case shall be proceeded with, without the presence of or the co-operation of the charged workman. Before awarding any major punishment, it shall be ensured that the charged workman is given an opportunity to see and take notes from the enquiry proceedings prior to his being called to give reply to the show cause notice."
36. It is evident that if a major punishment is to be given to the delinquent employee, he has to be issued a show cause notice invariably before awarding of any of these punishments. It also follows that even if a minor punishment is to be given, as indicated at Section 15 (I, II & III) irrespective of the major or minor, a show cause notice is must. Therefore, there is no distinction between minor and major punishment in terms of the issue of show cause notice but if a major punishment is to be awarded, the workman is concerned should be served with a charge sheet within 30 days and inquiry will be completed within 6 months from the date of issuing charge sheet. It follows that the charge sheet is to be issued only if a major penalty is to be awarded.
(OA No.1143-2022) (19)
37. It also stipulates that if an inquiry is to be held against an employee, he should be given the charge sheet setting forth the charges against him indicating the nature of offence as laid down in any of the sub-sections of Section 14. If on completion of the inquiry, the competent authority after considering the report of the inquiry, feels that the case will require a major punishment, a show cause notice is to be issued to the delinquent officer. Therefore, it appears that the charge sheet as per the extant rule should preceed a show cause notice. As per normal practice and also as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, when some misconduct is committed by an employee and based on the documents relied upon, disciplinary action needs further inquiry to be conducted then a show cause notice is issued. In the show cause notice, facts of misconduct are narrated and the employee is asked to submit his detailed explanation, based on which the decision about the inquiry is taken. If based on the reply to the show cause notice, it is decided to proceed with the inquiry, the charges are framed and a charge sheet is issued. Therefore, a charge sheet is issued when there is proof/evidence that the employee has committed some misconduct and there is prima facie case to proceed. Thus, it can be said that the show cause notice is a preliminary notice (OA No.1143-2022) (20) issued calling for explanation and charge sheet is clearly the alleged misconduct and thereafter show cause notice precedes the charge sheet. However, the Ashoka Hotel Rules under consideration provide that the issue of charge sheet will preceed show cause. Be as it may, the charge sheet contains allegations which tend to set out the nature of accusation. There must be some evidence in support of these allegations and hence a charge sheet invariably contains list of documents and the witnesses relied upon. In the instant case, though the issuance of charge sheet was in line with the provisions of Section 16 (II) of the said rules but neither the list of documents nor the list of witnesses to be examined, which are integral part of a charge sheet were mentioned in the charge sheet. Bereft of these two elements, the charge sheet loses its tenability. However, it is not in dispute that as per the procedure laid down in Section 16 (III) subsequent to the inquiry a show cause notice was issued on 29.07.2021 and later the report of the inquiry officer was also received by the applicant on 05.08.2021. Though the requisite procedure as laid down in Section 16 was followed in the instant case, the fact remains that the charge sheet did not contain the mandatory list of documents relied upon and the list of witnesses.
(OA No.1143-2022) (21)
38. In the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. the Commissioner of Police and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was absolutely no evidence in support of the charge framed against the appellant and the entire findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are vitiated by reason of the fact that they are not supported by any evidence on record and are wholly perverse.
39. We also find that the respondents relied upon the purported letter received from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (MSP) and the Principal of the School to establish that the document, i.e. Matriculation certificate was not genuine. However, no witnesses from the School or the MSP was called. It is relevant to mention that at the time of his appointment it was incumbent upon the respondents to verify his educational certificates and on being satisfied about authenticity of the documents which he had submitted in support of his educational qualifications, he was cleared for appointment. Ironically, the Principal of the School and the Secretary, MSP had issued certificates having two different and contradictory facts as ascertained from the counter reply as follows:
"b) However one letter No. के. क. मा. िश.
प/अिभलेख/3265 dated 20.08.2019 copy enclosed 02 pages) was received from Madhyamie Shiksha (OA No.1143-2022) (22) Parishad, UP chhetriya Karyalay, Meerut, the same letter was farwarded to the office of GM(A) from Vigilance department of ITDC. In the afore said letter it was declared that in the Year 1986 Sh. Prakash Chand so, Sh. Babulal DOB-01- 01-68 Roll No. 1052797, secured 277/600 marks and was declared as passed candidate.
But subsequently:
This letter No. .क.मा.िश. अिभलेख/3265 dated 20.08 2019 has created utter confusion because the earlier letter letter No. .क.मा.िश. अिभलेख/2159 dated 04/01/2019 received from office of Regional Secretary, Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, UP chhetriya Karyalay, Meerut, declared Sh Prakash Chand Year 1986, Roll No. 1052797 as a failed candidate who had secured 167/600 marks and the DOB was 01/01/1970. More ever both the letters have many differences in terms of font size, signatures, format etc."
Ironically, if in the wake of contradictory information received from the MSP vide their letters dated 20.08.2019 and 04.01.2015, which was the foundation of the case, it was important to have these documents examined by the witnesses who actually issued these certificates.
40. In the judgment of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Others 2009 (2) SCC 570, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere production of documents is not enough but their contents have to be proved by examining the witnesses. The relevant part of the said judgment is as under:
(OA No.1143-2022) (23) "Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled 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."
41. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of UP and Others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported at 2010 SLJ 59. Thus, the settled law is that the charges leveled against a delinquent officer are supported with documents and proved by witnesses during the hearing which is an in-built safeguard to allow a delinquent employee to cross examine the witnesses and to rebut the allegations against him. Failure to do so, more specifically, non-examination of the authority who has issued the letter claiming that the applicant did not meet the requisite qualification, does not help the cause of inquiry. As a result, we have no hesitation in concluding that since the foundation of the case rests on the tenability of the documents, purported to be fake and the same could not be established, in the absence of the relevant witness, the case (OA No.1143-2022) (24) loses its merits. Further, the purported charge sheet, bereft of list of documents and list of witnesses to be examined, puts question mark on legitimacy of the charge sheet.
Therefore, we find merit in the submissions made in OA and the OA is allowed accordingly. The impugned charge memorandum, inquiry report, penalty order and the appellate order are quashed. The applicant will be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, the respondents will be at liberty to start the inquiry afresh in accordance with law, if they so decide. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/