Statement In A Preliminary Enquiry Cannot Be Considered If Witnesses Are Not Examined In A Regular Enquiry: CAT Allahabad

Brief Facts:

The applicant was employed at the G.D.S.B.P.M Sarai Rajputani Branch Post Office. Initially, the Applicant was served with a chargesheet by the Supdt. of Post Offices, resulting in the Applicant being suspended from duty. However, after the statement of one Khemraj Bind was taken, the Applicant was reinstated. The Applicant responded to the chargesheet and an Inquiry Officer was appointed, whose report found the charges against the Applicant to be unproven. Despite this, the department disagreed with the report and submitted a disagreement note. The Applicant was given 15 days to respond, and upon submission of a representation, the disciplinary authority still decided to remove the Applicant from service. Subsequent appeals filed by the Applicant were both rejected by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the Applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (“Tribunal”).

The Applicant argued that the complaint against him stemmed from village politics rather than genuine wrongdoing. It argued that Bind, the Complainant, was not properly examined during the regular enquiry despite being a key figure in the case. He further highlighted that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine Bind, which raised questions about the fairness of the proceedings. Moreover, the severity of the penalty, removal from service, was excessive considering the lack of evidence supporting the charges and the Applicant's long tenure of service.

The department countered by pointing out the specific allegations made by Bind in his complaint. It argued that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968, affording the Applicant full opportunities to present his case, including cross-examination of witnesses.

Observations by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal noted that the Complainant himself acknowledged in the preliminary enquiry that the disputed money order was timely received. Despite this, the disciplinary enquiry proceeded without addressing the grounds raised by the Applicant, eventually resulting in the issuance of a show cause notice for removal, followed by the actual removal of the Applicant.

The Tribunal noted that the disciplinary authority, in forming its dissent with the enquiry report, relied on the Complainant's testimony recorded during the preliminary enquiry. However, the Tribunal held that statements made by witnesses during a preliminary enquiry cannot serve as substantive evidence in a subsequent regular enquiry, especially when said witnesses are not examined during the latter.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that it was evident from the enquiry report itself that the Complainant was not examined during the regular enquiry process. Consequently, it held that any evidence purportedly relied upon from the preliminary enquiry without being confronted during the regular enquiry cannot be admissible.

The Tribunal held that the punishment meted out to the Applicant based on such flawed grounds also becomes untenable. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the original application, and the impugned orders of punishment were annulled. The department was directed to reinstate the Applicant into service and provide all accrued monthly salaries along with arrears.

Case Title: Nawab Bind vs Union of India and Ors.

Case Number: Original Application No. 330/00406/2013

Advocate for the Applicant: B.N Singh

Advocate for the Respondent: Vidyapati Tripathi

Click Here To Read/Download Order