Unproved Witness Statement To Police Can't Be Used In Disciplinary Proceedings: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Govt Officer's Pension Forfeiture
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary action against a government officer stopping his 100% pension for life, which was solely based on statements of a person given to the police under Section 161 CrPC who was neither examined during the departmental enquiry nor before court. The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that a statement given under Section 161 CrPC, held...
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary action against a government officer stopping his 100% pension for life, which was solely based on statements of a person given to the police under Section 161 CrPC who was neither examined during the departmental enquiry nor before court.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that a statement given under Section 161 CrPC, held no evidentiary value under Section 162 CrPC, and could be used only for the purpose of contradiction, but not as substantive evidence, unless the witness was examined.
"In the present case, the material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner was exonerated in the criminal case and there is nothing on record to show that any criminal appeal has been filed, to challenge the judgment of acquittal. Similarly, the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings has also recorded a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of either of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority has reversed these findings solely on the basis of the statement of a witness who was neither produced in the inquiry proceedings nor in criminal trial, thus no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the present petitioner".
After clearing Rajasthan Public Service Commission exam, the petitioner was appointed as a Vidhi Rachnakar (Legal Drafter) in the Department of Law and Legal Affairs. A complaint was filed against him alleging usage of false caste certificate to secure employment, that led to initiation of a disciplinary inquiry against him. A criminal case was also filed against the petitioner in relation to these charges.
The departmental inquiry resulted in a report in favour of the petitioner wherein he was not found guilty of the charges. Similarly, he was also acquitted in criminal cases, and in the meantime the petitioner attained the age of retirement.
However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the disciplinary report by the inquiry officer, and found the petitioner guilty of the charges, imposing a penalty of stopping 100% pension for his entire life.
It was argued by the petitioner that the order of the disciplinary authority was based solely on the Section 161 CrPC statement of the tehsildar-cum-executive magistrate (who had allegedly issued the caste-certificate) given during investigation in the criminal case.
After hearing the contentions, including the challenged order of the disciplinary authority, the Court affirmed the argument of the petitioner. It was highlighted that the tehsildar was neither examined by the inquiry officer during the departmental inquiry, nor by the criminal court during the proceedings.
Hence, the petitioner never got the opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness based on whose statement the penalty was imposed on the petitioner.
In this background, it was held that the disciplinary order was contrary to the settled principles of law, arbitrary and illegal.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be entitled to all the consequential benefits.
Title: Vilayati Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 34
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Ms. Sweekriti Sharma; Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC; Mr. Dilip Singh