Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
6. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner was put under suspension on 18.12.1999
contemplating a departmental enquiry. The charges were also framed
on 05.02.2000, but no departmental proceeding was conducted in
accordance with law. The department did not examine any witness.
The petitioner was also not allowed to produce his evidence. During
the enquiry, if no witness is examined, the charges against the
employee cannot be said to have been proved. According to Bihar
Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005
there is a procedure for examination of witness and the presenting
officer is entitled to cross-examine the witness. The presenting officer
is also entitled to adduce his own evidence and in absence of
examination of production of oral or documentary evidence, the
charge cannot be said to have been proved. The provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act do not apply in all its strictness, but the
substantial principle of Evidence Act is to be observed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10559 of 2008 dt.26-04-2017
5/10
departmental enquiry also and this view find supports in the case of
Union of India vs. H.C. Goel reported in AIR 1964 SC 370.
Therefore, the order of dismissal is bad and fit to be set aside.
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1