Documents Collected During Investigation Cannot Be Treated As Evidence In Departmental Inquiry Unless Proved By Competent Witness : Bombay High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode has set aside the dismissal of a retired Assistant Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, holding that findings in a departmental inquiry cannot rest on documents collected during a criminal investigation unless their contents are proved through witnesses competent to speak to their authenticity. The Court found that neither the documentary evidence nor the oral testimony established any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification on the part of the employee, rendering the inquiry report, dismissal order, and appellate order unsustainable in law.
The petitioner, a retired employee who had served as Assistant Manager (Operation) with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., challenged the departmental proceedings that resulted in his dismissal from service. The disciplinary action followed allegations that he had accepted illegal gratification from a contractor in connection with the operation of a tank truck whose locking system was found tampered during inspection. The inspection allegedly revealed that the truck attracted a penalty of blacklisting for two years under the guidelines of the corporation. It was alleged that the petitioner demanded ₹20,000 from the contractor to permit the truck’s operation, which was later reduced to ₹15,000.
A complaint was subsequently lodged before the Central Bureau of Investigation, and a trap was conducted in which the petitioner was allegedly caught while accepting ₹15,000. A departmental enquiry was initiated where the disciplinary authority examined three witnesses and the petitioner examined two witnesses in defence. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained superannuation. The enquiry officer later submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, following which a show cause notice was issued. After considering the reply, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service, and the departmental appeal filed by him was rejected. These orders and the enquiry report were challenged before the High Court.
The Court recorded that “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.”
It stated that “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.”
The Court further recorded that “a decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are.”
Referring to the evidentiary requirement in disciplinary proceedings, the Court observed that “materials brought on record by the parties 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.”
The Court stated that “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.”
Examining the evidence on record, the Court recorded that “from the deposition of P.W. No.1-complainant, it is evident that nowhere in his deposition he stated about the demand made by the petitioner or payment of bribe amount against such demand made by the petitioner.”
It further recorded that “PW-2 was not with the complainant when the amount was paid to the petitioner… therefore, he could not listen to any conversation between them.”
The Court noted that “none of them could establish or prove the demand even by preponderance of probabilities.”
On the overall findings of the enquiry, the Court stated that “the Enquiry Committee has erroneously concluded that the petitioner is guilty, having based its findings upon documents the contents of which were never duly proved by examining competent witness possessing knowledge thereof.”
The Court recorded that “the oral evidence relied upon fails to establish, in any manner whatsoever, any demand or acceptance of a bribe.” It concluded that “none of the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved in the departmental enquiry. The findings recorded therein are not supported by any cogent evidence and are founded merely on surmises and conjectures.”
The Court directed that “The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order of rejection of appeal dated 09/01/2015, passed by respondent No.3 and the impugned order of dismissal dated 03/03/2014 passed by respondent No.4 and consequently the enquiry report dated 09/01/2014 given by respondent No.4 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits arising therefrom, subject to there being no other legal impediment in law. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Shashibhushan Wahane, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri V.D. Raut, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 5
Case Title: Ravidas S/o. Shivramji Rangari v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:3650-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3547 of 2015
Bench: Justice Anil S. Kilor, Justice Raj D. Wakode
