Recording of evidence is mandatory in disciplinary proceedings involving major punishment: Supreme Court reiterates

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court set aside the judgment dated 05-06-2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal had allowed the Claim Petition preferred by the appellant, the division bench of PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. set aside the impugned judgment and restored the order rendered by the Public Service Tribunal and reiterated that recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory, and mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses.

Background:

The appellant, while being posted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax faced disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of a charge sheet. The Disciplinary Authority issued a Show Cause Notice accompanied with the Inquiry Report to the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply/objections to the said Show Cause Notice. The Disciplinary Authority considered the reply of the appellant and issued the order dated 05-11-2014, whereby it awarded the punishment of Censure Entry as well as stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect to the appellant. The appellant challenged the order imposing penalty by filing the Claim Petition before the Tribunal which allowed the same vide order dated 50-07-2015; thereby, quashing the order dated 5-11-2014 and directed that the appellant to be entitled to all consequential benefits. The State/disciplinary authority assailed the order passed by the Tribunal by filing writ petition, whereby the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Analysis and Decision:

The Court reiterated that recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory, and mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses.¹

The Court further took note of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 4 SCC 301, wherein it was held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given.

Thus, the Court while setting aside the impugned judgment, concluded that the High Court fell into grave error of law while interfering in the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal had quashed the order imposing penalty upon the appellant.