Rajaram Meena vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Challenge in this appeal is made to order dated 03.11.2016 as also order dated 29.08.2012 of learned Single Judge. By order dated 29.08.2012 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant/writ-petitioner and the petition filed for review thereof has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.11.2016.

Contention of Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for appellant/writ-petitioner, is that before the learned Single Judge the argument raised on behalf of the appellant/writ-petitioner was that the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer was based on surmises and conjectures. There was total misreading of the statement of the witnesses inasmuch as none of the witnesses supported the case of the respondent department in regard to the allegation of second marriage allegedly contracted by the appellant/writ-petitioner. The order of dismissal from service was based on perverse finding in the enquiry report, rather the order was based on surmises and conjectures. The learned Single Judge observed that even though the appellant/writ-petitioner sought to build a case with reference to the findings recorded in the enquiry report but copy of the enquiry report, which was sought to be assailed, was not placed on record. The order of dismissal placed on record cannot be taken as substitute of the detailed enquiry report. It was held that to adjudicate the issue in reference to the argument, the appellant/writ-petitioner should have filed copy of the enquiry report, which was not before the Court, therefore, the basic and only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner could not be decided in his favour. It was held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner, wherein it was held that the enquiry report cannot be founded on mere ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the appellant/writ-petitioner failed to show the application thereof to the facts of the case in hand. Additionally, the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the argument of the appellant/writpetitioner, held that in the order of dismissal the disciplinary authority has made reference to the statements of few witnesses to support the allegation of second marriage, which are based on hearsay evidence, held that even hearsay evidence is admissible in disciplinary enquiry as the strict provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply though hearsay evidence may not have sanctity in the criminal case.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the impugned orders of learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to uphold the impugned orders firstly for the reason that the appellant/writ-petitioner has now filed before us the enquiry report and secondly we are not inclined to approve the reasoning that there is no bar in recording finding of guilt on hearsay evidence as strict provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply. It may be true that strict provisions of the Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiry and the charges in the disciplinary enquiry are not required to be proved by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as is applicable to a criminal trial. Nonetheless the charges are required to be proved by preponderance of probabilities.

Learned counsel for both the parties sought to refer to various statements to support their stand but in view of the fact that detailed conclusions have not been recorded by the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was dismissed largely owing to failure of the appellant/writ-petitioner to produce copy of the enquiry report on record, we do not wish to examine the merit of the case in greater details and deem it appropriate to remand the matter by setting aside the impugned orders.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order 03.11.2016 as also order dated 29.08.2012 of learned Single Judge are set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is revived to its original number for being listed before the learned Single Judge for hearing and decision on merits afresh.

This also disposes of the stay application.