Page No.# 1/21 GAHC010092432019 2026:GAU-AS:5388 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2822/2019 RUPALI BHATTACHARJEE D/O LT. SUSHIL KUMAR PURKAYASTHA, R/O ALPANA ENCLAVE, RUKMINI NAGAR NEAR LAKSHMI MANDIR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM VERSUS THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. WITH ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT 4 C.R. AVENUE HINDUSTAN BUILDING, KOLKATA-72, WEST BENGAL REP. BY THE ZONAL MANGER 2:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE S.S.ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 3:THE MANAGER P AND IR DEPTT. LIC GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE JEEVAN PRAKASH BUILDING S.S.ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 4:THE BRANCH MANAGER LIC DISPUR BRANCH OFFICE SAIKIA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX SREENAGAR DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 ASSA Page No.# 2/21 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A C BORBORA, MR. N B GOHAIN,MR. N SAIKIA,MRS. R BORBORA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S. NATH, MR. G. J. SHARMA BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 06/04/2026 Heard Mr. A C Borbora, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Ms. N Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Nath, learned Standing counsel, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 14.12.2018, passed by the Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), imposing upon the petitioner a penalty of “Reduction by one (1) stage in the time scale of pay applicable to her cadre”, with further direction for recovery of an amount of Rs.66,972/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Two), from her salaries. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 20.03.2019, passed by the Appellate Authority, affirming the penalty imposed upon her, vide the order dated 14.12.2018. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition, is noticed as under: The petitioner, while working as a Higher Grade Assistant (HGA), at the Page No.# 3/21 Dispur Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter, referred to as LICI), was involved in the processing of a loan application, against a policy existing in the name of one Upendra Kumar Mahapatra. The petitioner was handed over the said loan proposal for verification on 15.02.2016, by the Head of the Department (HoD) of Policy Servicing. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was entrusted with the work of checking the loan vouchers, in connection with the loan applications received. It is projected that the petitioner under the belief, that she was to check the voucher involved, proceeded to enter the data in the computer module of LICI, pertaining to the loan proposal against the policy in the name of said Upendra Kumar Mahapatra. After the process of entering the data was complete, the system had generated a voucher and therein, it was reflected that the loan was passed. The petitioner projects that she was not entrusted with the duties of passing a loan voucher, but was only entrusted with the duty of checking the said loan vouchers. She further projects that the loan voucher was already checked by a colleague of her, on the insistence of the Head of the Department. The petitioner has further projected that on the loan, being passed by her inadvertently, she had immediately approached the HoD and informed the matter with a further request to cancel the approval granted for sanction of the loan, in the system. It is further projected that Upendra Kumar Mahapatra had submitted a complaint and therein, had alleged that his loan policy was fraudulently utilized for disbursement of a loan and the amount was credited to a third party. On receipt of the said complaint, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, vide a communication dated 15.07.2016, required the petitioner to submit a detailed Page No.# 4/21 explanation as to why she had passed the Policy Loan Payment Voucher on 15.02.2016 for Rs.4,45,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Five Thousand) against the policy of Upendra Kumar Mahapatra, without proper verification of the Loan Application Form and other related documents. It was further alleged that the Loan Payment Voucher was passed by the petitioner without having the requisite financial power to do so. The petitioner submitted her reply to the said communication dated 15.07.2016 and therein, while denying the allegations leveled against her, had also set out her clarifications in the matter. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the clarification as set out by the petitioner, proceeded to issue a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 15.12.2017, on the same set of allegations, as contained in the communication dated 15.07.2016. The petitioner, on receipt of the said charge-sheet dated 15.12.2017, proceeded vide her reply dated 04.01.2018, to deny the allegations so leveled against her and further set out her clarifications, with regard to the transaction involved. The petitioner had in her reply dated 04.01.2018, amongst others, highlighted that after she had realized that the loan voucher has been passed by her, she had immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of the HoD and had refrained from signing on the voucher. The reply submitted by the petitioner, not being found to be satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority directed for holding an enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner vide the charge-sheet dated 15.12.2017 and for the purpose, appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, proceeded with the enquiry and the petitioner was found to have participated, therein. Page No.# 5/21 On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 04.08.2018 and therein, held the charges leveled against the petitioner to be partly established. The enquiry report as submitted in the matter, was forwarded to the petitioner on 10.08.2018 for her comments and the petitioner had submitted her representation thereto, on 20.08.2018. After the submission of her representation against the Enquiry Report on 20.08.2018, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, to the petitioner and therein, brought on record the reasons assigned for disagreeing with the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer in the matter. The Disciplinary Authority, vide the said show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, basing on the reasons adduced had held that the charges framed against the petitioner to have been proved. The petitioner was required to submit her reply, thereto. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation against the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018 and therein, dealt with the reasons as advanced by the Disciplinary Authority, for holding the charges against the petitioner to be proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 14.12.2018, on a consideration of the materials coming on record and drawing his conclusions, thereon, proceeded to impose upon the petitioner the penalty, as noticed hereinabove. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the penalty imposed upon her, had preferred an appeal on 30.01.2019 before the prescribed Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on examination of the contemporaneous records, proceeded vide order dated 20.03.2019, to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner in the said appeal and thereby, dismissed the appeal, by affirming the Page No.# 6/21 penalty imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Mr. A C Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner at the time when the loan application in question, was handed over to her, not apprised that the same was already checked and she was to ratify the same. 4.1 Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, while entering the data in the computer module, had done so for the purpose of checking the loan voucher. He submits that it is only after the completion of the process and generation of a voucher by the system, it was revealed that the petitioner had actually passed the loan in the system and that the same was already checked, before the loan application was handed over to her. He submits that the said aspect of the matter coming to the knowledge of the petitioner, she had on 15.02.2026, itself, brought the same to the knowledge of the Head of the Department and required cancellation of the payment voucher, inasmuch as, once the same was passed in the system, the petitioner did not have the authority to cancel the same. 4.2 Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner submits that an inadvertent mistake had occasioned on the part of the petitioner, however, she had taken timely steps for rectification of the same. Mr. Borbora, by referring to the enquiry proceedings held in the matter, has submitted that the petitioner on a query made to her, had informed the Enquiry Officer that the passing of the loan voucher, came to her knowledge only after completion of the process involved and she had become a victim of a situation because of the flawed system. It was further submitted, that the petitioner had also apprised during the enquiry, that after passing of the voucher incidentally, she had brought the Page No.# 7/21 matter to the knowledge of the HoD and refrained from putting her signature on the voucher. The said statement of the petitioner coming on record, it is submitted by Mr. Borbora, that the Enquiry Officer had required the Presenting Officer to clarify with regard to the same. 4.3 The learned Senior counsel submits that the Presenting Officer, upon making enquiries with the concerned Branch, had informed the Enquiry Officer that what the petitioner had stated with regard to the transaction, was correct. Accordingly, he submits that the said position having come on record, the petitioner could not have been further proceeded with in the matter and she was required to be exonerated from the charges leveled against her. 4.4 Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry, basing on the said materials coming on record, while holding the charges leveled against the petitioner to be partially established, had also held that the mistake committed was not intentional and that nothing was found during the enquiry against the petitioner to demonstrate that she had knowingly acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and prejudicial to good conduct. 4.5 Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the said conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer, were sought to be reversed by the Disciplinary Authority, by holding that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to establish that she had taken steps to cancel the voucher or to arrest the amount involved before it was paid through NEFT. Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the said conclusions reached by the Disciplinary Authority, is clearly perverse to the materials coming on record in the enquiry, wherein, the said steps taken by the petitioner was affirmed by Page No.# 8/21 the Presenting Officer, after the same was verified with the Branch concerned. Accordingly, Mr. Borbora, submits that on merits the conclusions reached in the matter by the Disciplinary Authority, would not be sustainable and no penalty, thereon, could have been imposed upon the petitioner. 4.6 Having made the above submissions, Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, have not been so drawn basing on legal evidences coming on record. 4.7 By referring to the daily proceeding sheets of the enquiry, Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the listed documents and other documents were produced before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer and the same came to be marked as Exhibits. He submits that the said documents were not exhibited through the deposition of witnesses. He submits that the enquiry report, however, observes that the petitioner had not also raised any objection with regard to the exhibitions of the documents, relied upon by the Bank in the enquiry. He submits that the said concession, if any, given by the petitioner would be only to the extent of admission of the documents concerned as an Exhibit, however, the same would also not tantamount to an admission to the contents, thereof. He submits that the contents of the said documents can only be proved through the deposition of witnesses. He submits that the petitioner would be in a position to dispute the contents of the documents exhibited only by cross-examining the witnesses, who has exhibited the said documents. He submits that in the enquiry held against the petitioner, the documents having not been brought on record by way of deposition of any witnesses, the contents of the said documents not having Page No.# 9/21 been proved, the exhibited documents cannot be construed to be admissible evidence, permitting the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority to base their respective conclusions, thereon. He submits that on the said ground alone, the enquiry held against the petitioner, stood vitiated and basing on such vitiated proceeding, no penalty was permissible to be so imposed. 4.8 In support of his such submissions, Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. 4.9 Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the petitioner all through, right from the first reply submitted by her to the explanation called of her, vide communication dated 15.07.2016, had taken the stand that the loan application was given to her for checking by the HoD, Public Servicing, LICI and after processing the same in the system, the petitioner on a voucher, being generated by the system, realizing that she had actually passed the loan voucher and not checked the same, had verbally informed the HoD (PS) and had required for cancellation of the said voucher. 4.10 Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the said consistent stand taken by the petitioner, the HoD (PS) was not examined as a witness in the enquiry. He submits that the HoD (PS), being the person in the helm of affairs and who had the authority to cancel the transaction after the same was passed in the system by the petitioner, on being informed of the same by the petitioner, having failed to take steps, was not produced in the enquiry as a witness only to protect him from the allegations now leveled against the petitioner, herein. He submits that non-examination of Page No.# 10/21 vital witness, results, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same would have the effect of vitiating the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and/or by the Disciplinary Authority in his order, as no cogent reason is assigned, justifying the non-production of a vital witness. 4.11 In support of his such submissions, Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (1999) 8 SCC 582 as well as the decisions of this High Court in the cases of Pratap Kaivarta Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2015 (4) GLR 616 and Naba Kanta Kalita Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2016 (4) GLT 1060. 4.12 In the above premises, Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained and would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. S Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI, at the outset, submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner, is based on documentary evidence and the documents in the enquiry, were marked, as exhibits, after the petitioner had consented to the said process. He submits that the petitioner having not disputed the genuineness of the documents exhibited in the enquiry, the non-production of the documents through the examination of a witness would not be fatal to the case of the Corporation. Accordingly, he submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), would have no application. Page No.# 11/21 5.1 Mr. Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI, has further submitted that while the petitioner has contended that the enquiry stood vitiated on account of non- examination of vital witnesses, the petitioner has not clarified as to why it was impermissible on her part to adduce the evidence of the vital witnesses as projected by her. Accordingly, he submits that the said ground urged by the petitioner, would not mandate consideration. 5.2 Mr. Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI, submits that the Enquiry Officer, basing on the documents coming on record, after the same was so deliberated upon by the Presenting Officer as well as by the petitioner, being in a position to draw his conclusions, the conclusions so drawn by the Enquiry Officer, read with the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority, in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 5.3 Mr. Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI further submits that the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report, being based on materials coming on record in the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority having not relied on any material, which had not come on record during the enquiry, he submits that this Court in exercise of its power of review, shall not proceed to also examine the sufficiency of evidence and/or proceed to substitute its views in place of the views of the Disciplinary Authority, by holding that the views expressed by this Court, is more plausible. 5.4 Mr. Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI, submits that even on merits, the charge leveled against the petitioner must be held to have been established, inasmuch as, during the enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner had not examined the loan proposal minutely, although, she was responsible for minute Page No.# 12/21 checking of the particulars, as incorporated in the loan proposal. 5.5 Mr. Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI submits that from the showing of the petitioner itself, it would be evident that the petitioner had experience in verifying loan applications and the petitioner in respect of the loan application in question, having admittedly not discharged her duties in the manner required, a loss having occasioned to the Corporation, the same was proportionately recovered from the petitioner along with the others involved in the matter, against whom also departmental proceedings were instituted. 5.6 Mr. Nath, learned Standing counsel, LICI submits that others against whom departmental proceedings were instituted and similar orders of recovery issued, have paid the amount involved to the Corporation without any objection. The petitioner, however, has disputed the said position and instituted the present writ petition. 5.7 In the above premises, Mr. Nath, submits that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance from this Court and the petition would be called to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts, noticed hereinabove, are not disputed and accordingly, the same is not reiterated hereinbelow. 8. Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the conduct of the proceedings against the petitioner as well as the order of penalty imposed upon her, both on merit as well as on technical grounds. Page No.# 13/21 9. The petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet dated 15.12.2017, on the basis of the following irregularities noticed: “1. THAT, you had passed the Policy loan payment voucher bearing No. 411915 on 15-02-2016 for Rs. 4,45,000/- against policy number. 584455106 without proper verification of Loan application form and other related documents, thereby facilitating the raising of Loan of Rs. 4,45,000/- which was credited to the Account No. 07281010023490 with Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Chandmari Branch, Guwahati, held by a third party and thus, causing a total loss of Rs. 4, 78,375/- (Loan Rs. 4,45,000/- plus accrued loan interest Rs.33, 375/-) to the Corporation. 2. THAT, you had passed the said loan payment voucher without having the requisite financial power as conferred by the Financial Power Standing Order, 1960 for payment of Policy Loan even though official having requisite financial power was present in the office on that day.” 10. Basing on the said irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the Corporation was projected to have suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.4,78,375/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five). 11. A perusal of the allegations leveled against the petitioner would reveal that the first allegation pertains to the passing by her of a Loan Payment Voucher for an amount of Rs.4,45,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Five Thousand) against the policy existing in the name of one Upendra Kumar Mahapatra, without proper verification of the Loan Application Form and other related documents, which facilitated the release of the loan for the said amount and crediting of the same into the account of a third person, i.e., the person other than the original policy holder, resulting in loss to LICI. The said issue was examined in the enquiry and on the first date of the regular hearing held in the enquiry, the petitioner, to a query made to her by the Enquiry Officer, had replied as follows: Page No.# 14/21 “On the day of alleged case of irregularity, the HOD of PS department was present in the office. As usual he presented a set of loan papers to me with advice of ratification. Based on my experience of any normal day, I presumed this to be another case of checking of loan voucher/paper. Accordingly, I proceeded for processing the said loan through module. At that time that is in the year 2016 in the loan module there were two options: (1) Voucher preparation (i) Voucher ratification But, after the process of the module was completed and the forwarding was printed out I could realize that actually passing of the Loan Voucher was done instead of checking. The said transaction on my part was unintended and I became a victim of the situation mainly because of the flawed system of the module then as the exact steps could not be known before the process was completed. There was no check point for financial power as is now. After I realized that the loan voucher has been passed incidentally, I immediately brought the matter to the knowledge of HOD and denied to put my signature on the voucher.” 12. The Enquiry Officer then required the Presenting Officer to clarify about the said contention of the petitioner. The Presenting Officer, on the second day of the hearing in the enquiry, had clarified by stating that he had personally verified the matter from the Branch and what the CSE (petitioner, herein), had stated was correct. 13. During the second date of hearing, on a query made, the petitioner during her examination had made the following further statements: “I verbally inform the HOD (PS) and regarding my refusal for signature in payment voucher I shall submit the copy of the payment voucher in the next Page No.# 15/21 hearing.” 14. To the said statement, the Presenting Officer had required the petitioner to inform as to why she had not cancelled the voucher after passing. The petitioner replied to the said query as follows: “Since payment made through Single Window therefore voucher could not be cancelled after passing at Branch level for which I made request to HOD to contact DO for cancellation of the voucher.” 15. The said contention of the petitioner having come on record, the Enquiry Officer had required the Presenting Officer to ascertain the correctness of the same. 16. On the third day of the hearing in the enquiry held against the petitioner, the Presenting Officer stated that whatever the CSE (petitioner, herein) had stated was correct. Accordingly, a mistake may have occasioned in the matter for various reasons on the part of the petitioner, however, on realizing the mistake occasioning on her part in actually passing/ratifying the Loan Voucher, it is seen that she had promptly brought the matter to the notice of her Superior, more particularly, the Head of the Department (PS), who was empowered to cancel such transaction, already approved in the system, which reflects that the petitioner did not have a malafide intention to enrich anybody illegally. The said aspect of the matter goes to the root of the allegations leveled against the petitioner and the same has the effect of exonerating the petitioner from the said allegations. 17. Accordingly, the said aspect of the matter coming on record, the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the considered view of this Court Page No.# 16/21 cannot be held to have been established against her, even by application of the principles of preponderance of probabilities. 18. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now be required to consider the conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, towards disagreeing with the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and thereby, proceeding to hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner stood established. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 04.08.2018 had concluded as follows: “Considering the fact stated above, the charges as enumerated in the chargesheet in the disciplinary proceeding against Smt Rupali Bhattacharjee, SR No.344052, HGA, Dispurt Branch under Guwahati Division presented by Sri T.C. Das, AO (NB Deptt) vide documentary evidence P-1 to P-10 and also depending upon CSE's personal statement recorded in the proceeding of hearing, in my observation Charges are partly established -(i) as mistake committed by her not due to total negligence (ii) and nothing found during enquiry proceeding to state that she had knowingly acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the corporation and prejudicial to good conduct. In my opinion (i) If PS Dept of the BO followed the rule regarding return of the policy bond on repayment of policy loan and (ii) if vouching was done by F&A Dept of the BO before payment, the said fraudulent transaction would not have been taken place.” 19. The enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner, without any comments from the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted her representation against the enquiry report. It was only after the representation dated 05.12.2018, was received from the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to record his disagreement note and to forward the same to Page No.# 17/21 the petitioner, vide the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018. The grounds for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer are as follows: “(i) the EO's observation that the CSE has committed the act as a "mistake" cannot be accepted to prove her innocence; ii) the signature/ thumb impression made by the L/A in the space provided in the proposal form for signature or thumb impression of the person whose life is proposed to be insured has been referred to as specimen signature for all official purposes and it is the basis for all future transactions with the policyholder; iii) an employee in the supervisory cadre cannot escape her responsibility on the outcome of a financial transaction using her official capacity through options available in the module only because of that it is done on the basis of assumption, as in the instant case the CSE had passed the voucher assuming that it was a case of checking only, what she usually does; iv) the CSE did not submit any evidence during the entire enquiry proceedings to establish that she took any step to cancel the voucher or to arrest the amount (Rs.4, 45,000/-) before it was paid through NEFT; v) the rule followed in the BO in respect of return of policy bond on repayment of loan cannot be construed as a reason behind negligence of duties of the concerned officials involved in processing of the payment voucher, as a result of which the fraudulent payment of loan of Rs.4,45,000/- had taken place; and vi) no further process for checking was left with the Branch Accounts department when the voucher was processed and paid by the PS department using Single Window option. The Enquiry Officer has failed to give cognizance of the exhibits submitted during the enquiry proceedings while arriving at his findings in the Enquiry Report. I, therefore, find that the charges levelled against the Charge sheeted employee are proved.” 20. After assigning the said reasons, the contention of the petitioner in the enquiry was dealt with and rejected. 21. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that she had informed the Page No.# 18/21 HoD (PS) for cancellation of the voucher or to issue stop payment instruction to the concerned Bank and accordingly, she had no negligence in the matter, the Disciplinary Authority had opined as follows: “I observe that the CSE did not submit any evidence during the entire enquiry proceedings to establish that she took any step to cancel the voucher or to arrest the amount (Rs.4, 45,000/-) before it was paid through NEFT. Therefore, it is evident that reasonable diligence had not been taken by Smt. R. Bhattacharjee at the time of payment of the policy loan of Rs.4,45,000/- under policy number 584455106 which was paid on 15-02-2016 through the voucher bearing No. 411915.” 22. The Disciplinary Authority had drawn a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner, during the enquiry, had not submitted any evidence to establish that she had taken steps to cancel the voucher or to arrest the payment of the amount involved. The said conclusions drawn by the Disciplinary Authority is clearly perverse, inasmuch as, the deposition of the petitioner, during the enquiry to the effect that she had informed the matter to the HoD and requested to cancel the voucher, was found to be correct. 23. A perusal of the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer’s report, reveals that the same are all based on the documents brought on record in the enquiry. Mr. Borbora, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the documents, so relied upon in the inquiry, were so produced by the Presenting Officer and marked as exhibits by the Inquiry Officer without the same being so required to be produced through a witness. The said submission in substance of Mr. Borbora, is that the petitioner was on account of the said process adopted by the Presenting Officer and Inquiry Officer denied an opportunity to cross- Page No.# 19/21 examine the witness to dispute the contents of the documents so produced in the matter. The right of cross-examination is a vital right and the same cannot be done away within an inquiry. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who would have produced the documents in the inquiry to dispute the contents of the documents so produced. It is a settled position of law that mere exhibition of a document would not also tantamount to an admission of its contents. The manner in which the documents were received in evidence in the inquiry would reveal that the contents of the documents were not proved and accordingly, the exhibited documents cannot be described as admissible evidence and the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority could not have placed reliance on the same for drawing their respective conclusion in the matter. 24. In this connection, support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had categorically held that mere production of documents is not enough and the contents of the documentary evidence has to be proved by examining the witnesses. It was further held that the decision must be arrived at basing on some evidence, which is legally permissible. 25. Applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) to the facts of the present case, it is seen that in the present proceeding, admittedly, the documents were not exhibited through witnesses. The vital right of the petitioner in the matter having been so violated and she being denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witness to dispute the contents of the documents so exhibited; it has to be held that evidences as received in the matter, being so received in clear violation of the principles of Page No.# 20/21 natural justice, cannot be construed to be legally permissible evidence. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, having relied upon the said evidence for arriving at their respective findings in the matter, the findings so recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner, stands vitiated and it can also be safely held that the said findings were so recorded basing on no evidence. 26. Accordingly, the evidences relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority, not being admissible evidence, the same could not have formed the basis for the conclusions so drawn by him in the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018 and accordingly, the said show cause notice, along with the order dated 14.12.2018 would mandate an interference from this Court. 27. In view of the above discussions, the show cause notice dated 20.11.2018, along with the order dated 14.12.2018 stand set aside. The order dated 14.12.2018, having been set aside, the penalties as imposed upon the petitioner, therein, including the recovery of Rs.66,972/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Two) also stand set aside and the interim directions passed in this connection stands affirmed. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.03.2019 also stands set aside. 28. The penalty of “Reduction by one (1) stage in the time scale of pay applicable to her cadre”, having been interfered with, the respondents shall refix the pay of the petitioner at the appropriate stage, w.e.f. the date her pay was fixed at the reduced stage in pursuance to the order dated 14.12.2018, and thereafter, release to the petitioner the arrears of her salaries so working out within 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Page No.# 21/21 29. This Court having interfered with the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, basing on the merit of the matter as well as on the ground that there was no legal evidence coming on record in the enquiry, the further point urged by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner of non-examination of the vital witnesses is not being examined any further. 30. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant