1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6225 of 2018 ----- Ramashish Roy, S/o Jagdish Roy, R/o Flat No. 701, Block No.24, Sector-1, Khelgaon, P.O.-Khelgaon, P.S.-Hotwar, Town & District- Ranchi. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District-Ranchi. 2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District-Ranchi. … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate : Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate : Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate : Ms. Ankita, Advocate : Mr. Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. Richa Sanchita, S.C.-V …...... 10 /27.02.2025: Heard both the parties. 2. The short point which needs to be decided in this case is that in a departmental proceeding if the Enquiry Officer relies upon some documents whether those document needs to be proved by oral evidence or not. 3. The facts of this case is admitted. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. A chargesheet was served to the petitioner, thereafter the enquiry proceeded. The enquiry report has been brought on record by the respondents. From the enquiry report I find that admittedly not even the single oral witness has been examined. The documents and its contents which have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to prove the charge has not been proved by any oral evidence as the details of witnesses has been shown to be “NIL” in the enquiry report. 2 4. The aforesaid issue has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 wherein it was held that it is necessary to prove the documents which are produced in disciplinary proceedings through oral evidence. The relevant paragraph is necessary to quote: - 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 5. The aforesaid proposition of law is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 873. 6. Further, as per the statement of the counsel for the respondent, it is admitted fact that a technical opinion was sought for and the same is one of the basis for punishment. This is also against the settled principle of law as reiterated in Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which it was held that merely on the basis of some internal enquiry report delinquent employee cannot be punished unless the same are exhibited in regular enquiry. 7. Considering the admitted fact that no witnesses have been examined in this case even to prove the documents, the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for all the monetary consequential benefits. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Arpit/