JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire departmental proceeding including the charge-sheet dated 16.6.2021 contained in Letter no. 175 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the General Manager, Piparwar Area, CCL (Respondent No. 4) on the ground that the charge-sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority. (ii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the dismissal order dated 28.06.2021 as contained in Memo no. 218 (Annexure-14) issued under the signature of respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the order of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner with immediate effect. (iii) For issuance of a further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the appellate order dated 01/10.11.2021 (Annexure-16) issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on erroneous grounds. (iv) For issuance of a further appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.01.2021 contained in Memo as no. 371 (Annexure-16), whereby and whereunder it has been directed that the petitioner will retire from service of Regional Stores, Piparwar Area of CCL with effect from 30.06.2021 on superannuation. (v) Consequently after quashing of the aforesaid impugned orders, a direction may be given upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits thereupon be paid with immediate effect. 2. The petitioner was working as Chief Storekeeper at the Regional Store, Piparwar Area, under M/s Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.). He was issued a charge-sheet dated 16.06.2021 alleging suppression of the fact that he had passed the Matriculation examination prior to joining service on 08.07.1980. The petitioner denied the allegation and submitted his reply on 18.06.2021. Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the management appointed an Enquiry Officer and conducted a departmental enquiry between 21.06.2021 and 23.06.2021. During the enquiry, the petitioner sought permission to engage a co-worker to defend his case. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 23.06.2021 finding him guilty. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 24.06.2021 was issued granting only 24 hours to respond. During the enquiry, the petitioner sought permission to engage a co-worker to defend his case. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 23.06.2021 finding him guilty. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 24.06.2021 was issued granting only 24 hours to respond. Despite the petitioner submitting his reply on 28.06.2021, the disciplinary authority on the same date passed an order dismissing him from service with immediate effect. The petitioner’s appeal dated 18.08.2021 was also dismissed and subsequently, vide order dated 16.01.2021, the petitioner was directed to retire from service w.e.f. 30.06.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no oral or formal witness was examined by the management. The entire disciplinary action was conducted without proper evidence, without granting reasonable opportunity to defend, and without following mandatory procedural requirements. He further submits that the management relied on ME-1 Service Register in support of allegation. However, the said document does not contain any column requiring disclosure of educational qualification. Therefore, there was no obligation on the petitioner to disclose his matriculation status at the time of appointment. On the reverse side of the same document, the petitioner had in fact declared himself as a matriculate, and the entry was made by the management itself. He also submits that the Enquiry Officer relied solely upon documents which were merely tendered, without examining any competent person to prove the contents, authenticity, or relevance. 4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner did not submit his Matriculation Certificate at the time of his appointment. According to the service register, his date of birth was recorded as 25 June 1961, whereas his matriculation certificate shows his date of birth as 12 January 1963 and no other age proof was produce by him. He further submits that if the petitioner had submitted the matriculation certificate at the time of appointment, he would have been declared underage and therefore he became ineligible for appointment, as the minimum age required for appointment was 18 years which shows that the petitioner obtained employment fraudulently with mala fide intention. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that no oral or formal witness was examined by the management to prove the charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer relied solely upon documents which were merely tendered and not proved in accordance with law. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that no oral or formal witness was examined by the management to prove the charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer relied solely upon documents which were merely tendered and not proved in accordance with law. Such documents, without being proved through competent witnesses, cannot be treated as legal evidence. In a Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi-judicial function. It is true that in a Departmental Proceeding, in strict sense, Evidence Act is not applied, but if a charge is sought to be proved, the same has to be proved by oral evidence or any documentary evidence. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha ” reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 at paragraph 28 has held as under. – 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. Further in the case of “ Nagar Panchayat Umari vs. Shyam Charan Chaturvedi ” reported in (2023) 18 SCC 311 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 8 has held that- 8. A departmental proceeding against a delinquent is a serious matter as it has its repercussions which can be far-reaching. It is trite law that the departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings. The enquiry officer functions in a quasi-judicial capacity. He has a neutral role to perform and cannot act as a representative of the management. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth…… Thus, the charge has to be proved in the inquiry proceeding before the Enquiry Officer. In a quasi judicial proceeding before the Enquiry Officer, there has to be evidence either oral or documentary or both to prove the charge. He has to act as an independent and impartial officer to find out the truth…… Thus, the charge has to be proved in the inquiry proceeding before the Enquiry Officer. In a quasi judicial proceeding before the Enquiry Officer, there has to be evidence either oral or documentary or both to prove the charge. If a charge is sought to be proved solely based on documentary evidence, not only those documents are to be supplied to the delinquent employee, but such documents along with their contents must be proved before the Enquiry Officer during the proceeding. In the case of “ Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an officer conducting an Enquiry must arrive at findings only after considering the materials brought on record by the parties. Hon’ble Supreme court has held in paragraph 14- 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. Further in case of “ State of U.P. vs. Ram Prakash Singh ” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 14 has held that- 14. What follows from a conjoint reading of the above two decisions is and what applies here is that, ‘materials brought on record by the parties' (to which consideration in the enquiry ought to be confined) mean only such materials can be considered which are brought on record in a manner known to law. Such materials can then be considered legal evidence, which can be acted upon. Such materials can then be considered legal evidence, which can be acted upon. Though the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceedings, nevertheless, the principles flowing therefrom can be applied in specific cases. Evidence tendered by witnesses must be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employee, he should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no document should be relied on by the prosecution without giving copy thereof to the delinquent - all these basic principles of fair play have their root in such Act. In such light, the documents referred to in the list of documents forming part of the annexures to the chargesheet, on which the department seeks to rely in the enquiry, cannot be treated as legal evidence worthy of forming the basis for a finding of guilt if the contents of such documents are not spoken to by persons competent to speak about them. A document does not prove itself. In the enquiry, therefore, the contents of the relied-on documents have to be proved by examining a witness having knowledge of the contents of such document and who can depose as regards its authenticity. In the present case, no such exercise was undertaken by producing any witness. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments and observation made herein above, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence, as admittedly no oral or formal witness was examined and the documents relied upon were neither proved nor brought on record in a manner known to law. Further, I find that at the relevant time when he was appointed the minimum age for employment was 16 years and not 18 years as per section 40 of the Mines Act, 1952. 8. Thus, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order dated 28.06.2021 and appellate order dated 01/10.11.2021 are set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.