Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna High Court has held that an uncorroborated newspaper report cannot constitute substantive proof of misconduct in a departmental proceeding, particularly where the report is contradicted by contemporaneous official records.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kumar Manish was hearing a petition filed by Pankaj Kumar challenging the departmental proceedings and punishment imposed upon him while he was posted as Principal-cum-Centre Superintendent at Government ITI Mahkaar, Gaya.

Before the All-India Trade Test (AITT) conducted in July 2018, the petitioner had submitted an inspection report and subsequent requisitions informing the authorities about infrastructural deficiencies at the centre. He specifically pointed out that the centre had seating capacity for only 110 candidates against approximately 350 candidates appearing daily and sought necessary logistical support. The examination was conducted on 24.07.2018. The Magistrate and Observer deputed at the centre reported that the examination had been conducted peacefully and fairly.

The following day, however, a report was published in Dainik Bhaskar alleging delay and mismanagement during the examination. Based on the newspaper report, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice. He replied that the photograph published with the report related to another institution. Departmental proceedings were subsequently initiated against him under Rule 19 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

During the proceedings, the petitioner sought the technical parameters, video recordings and inspection details which, according to him, were necessary to prepare his defence. His request was rejected by the department as “not reasonable”. The disciplinary authority thereafter imposed censure and withheld three increments without cumulative effect.

The petitioner challenged the action before the High Court, contending, inter alia, that the disciplinary proceedings had been founded on an unproved newspaper report despite the existence of an official report by the deputed Magistrate and Observer recording that the examination had proceeded peacefully.

The High Court found substance in the challenge. The Court noted that the allegation concerning examination mismanagement had originated solely from the newspaper report. The chargesheet did not cite any witnesses to prove the allegations contained in the report. Relying on Laxmi Raj Shetty, the Court held:

“As settled in Paragraph 19 of Laxmi Raj Shetty (supra) newspaper reports do not constitute substantive evidence in the absence of independent proof and witness testimony.”

The Court further explained that the contents of a newspaper report cannot be treated as substantive evidence merely because the report has been produced before the disciplinary authority. The individual who had personally perceived the events forming the subject matter of the report would have to be examined, particularly when the allegations were disputed.

In the present case, the Court found that the newspaper report was also directly contradicted by the contemporaneous report of the Magistrate and Observer deputed at the examination centre. That report recorded that the July 24 examination had been completed peacefully and without malpractices. The Court therefore found it significant that the department had relied upon the newspaper clipping without examining any witness and without adequately addressing the contrary official material.

The Court also found a separate violation of natural justice. The petitioner had specifically requested disclosure of the technical parameters, CCTV recordings and other material relied upon by the department so that he could effectively defend himself. The request was rejected without furnishing the material.

The Court held that where the disciplinary authority relies upon technical material or documents forming the foundation of a charge, the delinquent employee must be given access to such material to enable him to examine, explain or challenge it. It observed:

“Natural justice requires disclosure of the material relied upon by the disciplinary authority in order to give the employee an opportunity to examine, explain, contradict or challenge it during the enquiry.”

The Court further held that although Rule 19 permits a summary procedure in appropriate cases, it cannot be used where the allegations involve disputed questions of fact which require proof. In the present case, despite the petitioner specifically disputing the allegations, the department had cited “Nil” witnesses and proceeded on the basis of the newspaper clipping.

The Court concluded that the department could not summarily impose punishment by relying upon an unproved newspaper report while ignoring the official inspection material and without conducting an inquiry capable of establishing the disputed allegations.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the departmental charge memo dated 08.03.2019, the punishment order dated 11.11.2019 and the review rejection order dated 06.09.2021. The respondents were directed to restore all service benefits to the petitioner and release the arrears of salary along with the withheld increments within three months.

Case: Pankaj Kumar v. State of Bihar and Ors.

Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17870 of 2021

Appearance: For the Petitioner – Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Basheer Faizi, Advocate and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents – Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, GP.

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: