RAJ KUMAR Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we note with extreme regret and pain that once again the Tribunal has short circuited the matter compelling us to guide the Tribunal, not only in the instant matter, but even other matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against Government servants or those who serve public sector undertakings or subordinate offices of the Government. Our reason for guiding the Tribunal is that in 9 out of 10 matters pertaining to disciplinary proceedings we find that invariably the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal.

(2.) IN 9 out of 10 cases, the learned members of the Tribunal, like reciting a nursery rhyme, simply record that at a domestic inquiry the standard of proof is preponderance of probability and as long as there is some evidence to sustain the finding of guilt, the Tribunal would not re- appreciate the evidence.

(3.) BUT this is only one facet of the law. It is settled law that where the grievance is that material evidence is ignored by the Inquiry Officer and in spite of attention being drawn thereto of the disciplinary authority, neither has considered the same, it is the duty of the Tribunal to note the grievance with reference to the evidence statedly ignored and thereafter determine whether the same was material. For if, a trier of a fact ignores material evidence a serious jurisdictional infirmity comes into being. Corrective action has to be taken by taking into account the said material evidence and then decide which way the wind blows. Similarly, where the grievance is that it is a case of no evidence, it is the duty of the Tribunal to note the exact submission with reference to the manner in which the same is sought to be made good. For example, an indictment at a disciplinary inquiry may be on wholly inadmissible evidence such as hearsay; but not hearsay of a kind as was held admissible in Ratan Singh's case (supra). It would be the duty of the Tribunal to, after noting the precise grievance, deal with the same. Further, as in the instant case, where the report of the Inquiry Officer absolves the charged officer and the disciplinary authority has penned a note of disagreement, and the grievance urged is that the note of disagreement does not deal with the reasoning of the Inquiry Officer nor does the final order deal with the reasoning of the Inquiry Officer, it would be the duty of the Tribunal to note the exact contention and deal with the same.