T ANDAL Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the wife and son of one C.Thanigachalam, now deceased, who was employed as Armed Guard/Assistant (A/c) with the second respondent. In respect of certain alleged wrong doing of the said employee a charge memo dated 03.09.1999 was issued informing as follows:

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) DECISION of the Apex court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others v. Jai Bhagwan, 2011 6 SCC 376 was relied upon to submit that non examination of the complainant during the departmental proceeding has denied the employee his right of cross examination and that in the absence of definite/clear proof as could be afforded by the complainant, it would be erroneous to arrive at a finding of guilt. Placing reliance on Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors, (2009) 2 SCC 570, submission was made that mere production of documents in the departmental enquiry is not sufficient and that it is necessary to prove contents of the documentary evidence by examining witnesses. The said decision also was relied upon to inform that the confession contained in PEX-15 had not been proved and infact it had not been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and therefore some evidence must have been brought on record which would establish that the employee had indulged in wrong doing. Submitting that Charge V was incidental to charges iv and vi and that when such charges fell so would charge V, learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.5484 of 1999 dated 13.02.2002 wherein it had been observed as follows: