Punishment Solely Based On Documentary Evidence Not Proved By Examining Witnesses: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Cook's Reinstatement

The division bench of Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Shubha Mehta observed:

“In the case at hand, the punishment order has been passed solely relying upon the letters alleging that the experience certificates of the petitioner-respondent are fake but without examining any witness to prove the said letters. No witness was examined to prove that said letters were written by the person concerned.”

The petitioner was employed as a cook with the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV). It was alleged that for the purpose of securing the said job he had produced certain certificates of the Hotel Hawa Mahal, Hotel Holiday Inn and a canteen of Hindustan Zink Ltd. to show that he had the relevant experience of cooking of five years.

The respondents held an enquiry against the petitioner for producing forged certificate for the purposes of obtaining the job. In the said disciplinary enquiry, certain letters were obtained from the above hotels and canteen stating that the respondents had not worked with them.

On the basis of those letters (documentary evidence) the enquiry report went against the petitioner and his services were terminated by the Deputy Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.

He challenged the termination order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur which was allowed by the impugned judgment holding that the petitioner-respondent was not afforded any opportunity to rebut the evidence produced to prove the certificates to be fake; rather no evidence was adduced against the documentary evidence in the form of letters to prove the certificates to be fake.

The court relied upon the judgement of Apex Court Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491 in which it was laid down that if an order of punishment is passed solely on the basis of documentary evidence and the same is not proved by examining witnesses executing the said document, the order of punishment cannot be sustained even if the documents are admitted by the charged officer.

The court held: “as the said letters were not proved, no order of punishment could have been passed treating the certificates of experience furnished by the petitioner-respondent to be fake.”

The court also pointed that the petitioner-respondent is a Group-D employee and his appointing/disciplinary authority is the Principal, JNV, who is the competent authority to pass an order of punishment.

The court noted:

“In the case at hand, the punishment order against the petitioner- respondent has been passed not by the Principal, JNV but the Deputy Commissioner and as such, the petitioner-respondent had no remedy left to file any appeal. In the case punishment itself is passed by a higher authority than the appointing/ disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority, the remedy of appeal loses significance and in such a situation, the petitioner respondent was left with no remedy but to approach the Tribunal or the Court.”

Hence, the court disposed of the writ petition upholding the impugned judgement and order of the CAT, Jaipur.

Case Title: Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. v. Damodar Singh Gunawat

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

Coram: The Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Shubha Mehta

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment