'Documentary Evidence Cannot Prove Itself Without Oral Testimony': Patna High Court
The Patna HC has quashed the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank employee who was terminated for alleged impersonation in a recruitment examination, holding that the principal evidence relied upon to establish the charge was never properly proved during the departmental inquiry.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kumar Manish was hearing the employee's challenge to the dismissal order dated 31.03.2018, by which he was dismissed from service and debarred from future employment on the allegation of impersonation.
The petitioner had applied for the IBPS Common Written Examination for Management Trainee/Probationary Officer in 2013, qualified the written examination and interview, and was appointed by PNB in 2014. He joined the Bank in February 2015.
A complaint alleging that he had impersonated another person in the written examination was subsequently received by the Bank. The CFSL, Shimla examined the relevant signatures and opined that the person who wrote the standard signatures had not written the questioned signatures. The Central Finger Print Bureau, however, found the questioned thumb impressions to be blurred/hazy and lacking sufficient ridge detail for comparison.
The Bank thereafter initiated disciplinary proceedings. The sole charge alleged that the petitioner had procured impersonation during the 2013 examination. The Presenting Officer placed eight documents before the Inquiry Officer, including the CFSL handwriting report, but did not examine any witness.
The Court found this to be a fatal evidentiary defect. It noted that the handwriting expert who authored the CFSL report was never examined and no other witness was called to prove or explain the report. The petitioner consequently had no opportunity to test the expert opinion through cross-examination. The Court observed:
“The CFSL opinion in the present case may constitute expert material, but the question before this Court is not whether the signatures in fact differ. The material point is that the expert report was relied upon as substantive support for the charge without examination of its author or any other witness competent to prove and explain the report…”
The Bench further noted that the Central Finger Print Bureau had not provided an adverse identification of the petitioner, as the questioned impressions were found unfit for comparison. Thus, the fingerprint material did not independently corroborate the allegation of impersonation.
Applying the principles governing proof of documents in departmental inquiries, the Court held that the Bank had committed a “fatal procedural and evidentiary error” by relying on the CFSL report without proving it through appropriate oral evidence.
The Court accordingly held that the Inquiry Report dated 12.12.2017 and the consequential dismissal order could not be sustained because the principal evidence relied upon to establish the charge had not been proved in the departmental inquiry. The appellate order, which had merely rejected the statutory appeal as time-barred, could not independently cure the defect.
Considering the passage of time and the fact that the evidentiary deficiency arose from the management's failure to prove the very material on which the charge was based, the Court also held that a fresh inquiry would not be justified.
The dismissal and appellate orders were therefore quashed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in his previous or an equivalent post with continuity of service and consequential service benefits.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Sushant Srivastava, Advocate
Mrs. Sonali Priya, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate
For IBPS : Mr. Siddartha Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Sunit Kumar, Advocate
For the Bank : Mr. Dr. Pankaj, Advocate