Electronic Records Alone Can't Replace Examination, Cross-Examination In Departmental Inquiry: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments, as under Rule 16(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (the “Rules”) cannot be avoided merely because the disciplinary authorities considered that documentary or electronic material was sufficient.

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing an appeal against the order of the MD of Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.

It was the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as a Banking Assistant, he was served with a memorandum of charges with allegations of embezzlement of bank funds.

All these charges were denied by him on the ground that the ID which was required for the transactions involved was a Checker ID which was possessed by a manager, while his ID was a maker ID. He further submitted the possibility of his ID being misused by the manager or another contractual employee.

The petitioner argued that without examination any department witnesses, the order imposing penalty of dismissal from service was passed against him. Hence, the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules was not followed, depriving him of an effective opportunity to defend.

On the contrary, the respondents argued that petitioner was responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of his ID and password, and the transactions that resulted in the embezzlement were carried out through his ID.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that,

“…there is no material demonstrating that the prosecution witnesses and documents were dealt with in the manner contemplated by the Rule, that the departmental witnesses were examined in the inquiry with an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them, that the defence witnesses and documents were dealt with in the prescribed manner, or that the petitioner was afforded the contemplated opportunity of leading defence evidence and thereafter addressing arguments.”

The Court rejected the respondents' argument to the effect that considering the nature of banking transactions, examination of witnesses was not necessary. It was held that such contention could not be accepted to substitute the compliance with procedure, required under Rule 16.

“The Rule does not leave it to the disciplinary authorities to dispense with the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments merely because the department considers the documentary or electronic material sufficient. Where the charges are denied, the procedure prescribed by the Rule is required to be followed.”

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that in the present matter, petitioner's defence was not merely a denial, but factual dispute regarding his ID being a maker ID, while the transaction requiring a checker ID, available only with a manager, which contradicted the contention of the respondents that the transactions happened using petitioner's ID.

In this background, it was held such a disputed factual issue could not be conclusively dealt with merely by referring to the electronic record or other internal material.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order of the disciplinary authority, that dismissed the services of the petitioner, was set aside for not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 16.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Bohra

Counsel for Respondents: Dr. Pratishtha Dave