SATISH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Affidavits have been exchanged. There was a complaint against the petitioner by one Mr. Yadav, Executive Engineer that the petitioner had misbehaved with him. It has been specifically stated in the writ petition that the said complainant failed to appear before the enquiry officer to testify about the alleged misbehaviour by the petitioner. The enquiry officer did not record any finding cogently and did not say in his enquiry report, enclosed with the supplementary counter affidavit, as to how the charge was proved against the petitioner. However, the enquiry officer recommended that because the petitioner had remained suspended for quite sometime before being reinstated on account of serious health problems, therefore he had already suffered enough and therefore, from a humanitarian point of view the departmental proceeding should be closed.

(2.) The disciplinary authority, without issuing any further notice to the petitioner, took a decision to impose the following two punishments:

(3.) Misbehaviour is an allegation, which can not be proved by documentary evidence. It has to be proved by oral evidence and the evidence of the complainant forms the most important part of such proof. Obviously, the testimony of the complainant was required to be tested by cross-examination. Failure on the part of the complainant to appear before the enquiry officer, to testify about the charge, appears to be fatal to the entire proceeding. The charge can not be said to have been proved. Accordingly, the punishment is also not called for.