Court reiterates that mere production of documents is insufficient; contents must be proved in line with principles of natural justice
The Supreme Court has reiterated that in a departmental enquiry, documents not admitted by the employee must be proved through witnesses, holding that mere production of documents cannot establish charges.
The ruling came in the context of disciplinary proceedings where the charges against an employee were sought to be established primarily on the basis of documentary evidence. The employee had disputed the authenticity and contents of such documents, raising concerns about procedural fairness.
The key issue before the Court was whether documents relied upon in a departmental enquiry could be treated as proved without examining witnesses, particularly when such documents were not admitted by the delinquent employee.
The Supreme Court emphasised that although strict rules of evidence under the Evidence Act do not apply to departmental enquiries, the basic principles of natural justice must still be followed.
It held that a document does not prove itself and that its contents must be established by examining witnesses who can speak to its authenticity and relevance.
The Court reiterated that mere marking or production of documents is not sufficient to prove the charges in a disciplinary proceeding.
Further, the Bench underlined that failure to examine witnesses deprives the delinquent employee of the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut the evidence, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
Reaffirming settled law, the Court noted that departmental enquiries are quasi-judicial in nature, and findings must be based on some legally admissible evidence rather than mere assumptions or unproven documents.
It also reiterated that even in disciplinary proceedings involving a lower standard of proof (preponderance of probabilities), charges must still be supported by properly proved evidence.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that reliance on unproved documents cannot sustain findings of guilt in a departmental enquiry. The Court emphasised that where documents are disputed, the department must lead oral evidence to prove them through witnesses.
