$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8504/2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with
Mr. Krishna Chaikanya and Mr. Raj Kumar
Maurya, Advs.
versus
SHRI ABHIJIT BANIK
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi
Dua and Mr. Abhimanyhu Baliyan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
O R D E R
% 31.05.2024
CM APPL. 34970-71/2024 –Ex.
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 34972/2024 –Addl. Doc.
3. This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to file
some additional document.
4. The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8504/2024 & CM APPL. 34969/2024 –Stay.
6. The present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India seeks to assail the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:38:54
learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original
Application (O.A.) No. 1492/2015. Vide the impugned order, the
learned Tribunal has set aside the departmental proceedings held
against the respondent alongwith all consequential orders after
noticing the fact that though the enquiry officer had exonerated the
respondent, the disciplinary authority has indicted him on the basis of
the documents presented by the petitioner even though the said
documents were not tendered in evidence by any prosecution witness.
7. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that since the respondent did not want to lead any
defence evidence or produce any documents, a presumption was
drawn that the documents presented by the prosecution were deemed
admitted by him.
8. We are unable to accept this plea as the respondent’s failure to adduce
documents in defence cannot be construed as an admission of the
documents filed by the management. Taking into account that it is an
admitted position that no management witness was produced in the
departmental inquiry to tender in evidence the documents of the
management, we are of the view that the Disciplinary Authority has
erred in relying on those documents produced by the management.
Furthermore, this issue raised in the present petition is already
covered by a catena of decisions of this Court including the decision
in “Anil Kumar Dhyani vs. Union of India & Ors.” 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 9911, passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in
which one of us, namely Rekha Palli, J, was a member. It would,
therefore, be apposite to reproduce the relevant extracts of the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:38:54
decision in “Anil Kumar Dhyani” which read as under:
“17. Though it is well settled that in a domestic inquiry,
strict rules of evidence do not apply and the inquiry officer
is not expected to write a judgment like a Judge of a Court
but it is also equally a well settled proposition, that the
domestic inquiry is a quasi judicial proceeding and the
inquiry officer, while performing this quasi judicial
function, has a duty to carefully examine the evidence led
before him and he cannot merely rely on the documents filed
by the Presenting Officer to hold the delinquent employee
guilty. Inference on facts by an inquiry officer must be
based on some evidence, which is led before the inquiry
officer in compliance of the principles of natural justice and
he is expected to ensure that at least the evidence presented
by the management, is sufficient to hold that the charge is
proved.
18. XXX
19. XXX
20. We are also fortified in our aforesaid view by the
pronouncement in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar
Sinha (Supra), relevant paras whereof read as follows:—
“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
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:38:54
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.
27. Apart from the above by virtue of Article
311(2) of the Constitution of India the
departmental inquiry had to be conducted in
accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a
basic requirement of rules of natural justice that
an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in any proceeding which may
culminate in a punishment being imposed on the
employee.
28. When a department enquiry is conducted
against the Government servant it cannot be
treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry
proceedings also cannot be conducted with a
closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly
unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required
to be observed to ensure not only that justice is
done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object
of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a
government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in imposition of
punishment including dismissal/removal from
service.”
21. In A.K. Saxena (supra), in paras 36 & 37, this Court
has held as under:—
“36. The Supreme Court has consistently held
that a departmental inquiry is akin to a quasi
judicial proceeding. It has also been held that
mere production of documents is not enough, the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:38:54
contents of the documents have also to be proved
by examining the witnesses. This has been held
while taking into consideration the fact that
though the W.P.(C) 3127/2014 Page 21 of 22
provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
applicable in departmental proceedings, but the
principles of natural justice would certainly be
applicable.
37. Resultantly, we are of the view that the
Tribunal was bound by the decision rendered by
the coordinate bench of the Tribunal. The
Supreme Court in the case of G.S. Grewal (supra)
have expressed its deep displeasure when such
judicial propriety is not maintained. We reiterate,
that in case for any strong reasons the Tribunal
was of the view that the decision rendered by the
coordinate bench was not in accordance with law,
the only option available was to refer the matter
to a larger bench which was not done in this case.
Even otherwise, we are of the view that the
decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case
of J.P. Singh (supra) is good law.”
23. In fact, from a perusal of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar
Pandey (supra), which has been relied upon by the
Respondents, it becomes evident that only when the
documents are uncontroverted, it is open to the inquiry
officer to accept the same, to hold the employee guilty even
without examining any witness. In a case where the
documents are not admitted by the delinquent employee, the
same have to be proved by the management by leading oral
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:38:54
evidence and in the absence of any witness, the same cannot
be relied upon by the inquiry officer while arriving at his
finding in respect of the charges.”
9. In the light of the aforesaid, when the petitioners themselves failed to
examine any witness to prove the documents vide which the charges
were sought to be proved against the respondent, we find absolutely
no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition
being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith the
accompanying application.
REKHA PALLI, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MAY 31, 2024
acm
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/06/2024 at 12:38:54