UNION OF INDIA Vs. J P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners by this writ petition assail the order dated 27th July, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.352/2005. The Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 20th June, 2000, compulsorily retiring the respondent from service and the order dated 28th January, 2004, passed by the Revisional Authority, reducing punishment of compulsory retirement to reduction of pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. The Central Administrative Tribunal proceeded primarily on the limited ground that the statements of witnesses, which had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry by the complainant, were neither ratified nor authenticated by the makers of the statements, during the inquiry proceedings. Hence these could not be relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to uphold the charges and impose the above punishment. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that with the exclusion of the said inadmissible evidence, it was rendered to be a case of ?no evidence? and punishment imposed was not sustainable.

(2.) Before we can consider the grounds on which the petitioner/UOI seeks to challenge the order of the Tribunal, the facts culminating into the present petition may be briefly noted.

(3.) The learned Tribunal allowed the OA, as noted by us earlier, primarily on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have acted on inadmissible and extraneous evidence. The Tribunal held that the witnesses whose statement had been recorded under the preliminary inquiry, on which reliance was placed during the regular inquiry, had not supported the statements as recorded in the preliminary inquiry. The Tribunal, in our view, rightly held that unless the statement of witnesses earlier recorded, were ratified and authenticated by the makers, the same could not be relied upon. The Tribunal noted that while it is true that in disciplinary proceedings, strict rules of evidence as contained in Evidence Act may not be applicable and the principles of preponderance of probabilities is acted upon, yet the procedure adopted in disciplinary proceedings cannot be such so as to permit basing of the finding as to misconduct on evidence, which was wholly inadmissible. Finding of misconduct based on such inadmissible evidence would not be sustainable. We are in agreement with the approach adopted by the Tribunal.