Documents Collected During Investigation Are Not Evidence In Departmental Inquiry Unless Proved By Competent Witness: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be based merely on documents collected during an investigation unless their contents are proved through competent witnesses who can speak to their authenticity. The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer has duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties....
The Bombay High Court has held that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot be based merely on documents collected during an investigation unless their contents are proved through competent witnesses who can speak to their authenticity. The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer has duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties.
A division bench of Justices Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode was hearing a writ petition filed by a retired Assistant Manager (Operation) of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, challenging the departmental inquiry report dated 9 January 2014, the dismissal order dated 3 March 2014, and the appellate order dated 9 January 2015 affirming his dismissal from service.
The Court noted that the charge is of accepting illegal gratification for allowing the operation of a tank truck that had tampered with standard fittings, which otherwise attracts a penalty of blacklisting for two years.
The Court held that documents collected during an investigation cannot by themselves constitute evidence in a disciplinary proceeding unless their contents are proved through witnesses. The Court emphasised that the Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. It observed:
“The purported evidence collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer against the accused by itself could not be treated as evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. No document should be relied on by the prosecution without giving a copy thereof to the delinquent, and the contents of such document have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the contents of such document and who can depose as regards its authenticity.”
The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer had not examined any witness knowing the contents of the documents on which the Enquiry Officer had placed reliance, or any witness who could depose as regards the authenticity of such documents. The Court also analysed the oral evidence of the witnesses examined during the inquiry, and concluded that none of them could establish or prove the demand even by a preponderance of probabilities.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the Enquiry Officer had relied heavily on documentary material and other investigation records, the contents of which were never duly proved by examining a competent witness possessing knowledge thereof and capable of deposing to their authenticity.
Holding that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved in the departmental enquiry, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the inquiry report, the dismissal order and the appellate order, and directed that the petitioner be granted all consequential benefits arising from the setting aside of the disciplinary action.
Case Title: Ravidas v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 3547 of 2015]