1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1445 OF 1998 Pandurang D. Dhumal ...Petitioner v/s Railway Goods Clearing and Forwarding Establishments Labour Board for Greater Bombay ...Respondents Mr K.S. Bapat with Mr Jayesh Desai for Petitioner. Ms Lata Desai for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioner who was in the employment of the respondent  Board as a Clerk challenges the order dated 25th November 1997 dismissing him from the service of the Board. The relevant facts are that a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. The main charge was that the petitioner, while working as a Clerk inflated the summary prepared by him for making payment, as a result of which he caused loss to the Board. Though three witnesses were cited, only one person was examined as a witness by name A.B. Patil. At the conclousion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer held that the only witness examined on behalf of the Board is not found to be reliable but the Enquiry Officer, on the basis of documents on record, recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct alleged against him. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the finding and imposed the punishment of dismissal. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner 3 submitted that the entire enquiry has been held in violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry has been held without there being original record. The Enquiry Officer also did not supply copies of all the relevant documents to the petitioner. He submitted that after having held that the only witness examined on behalf of the Board is not reliable, the Enquiry Officer could not have recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct on the basis of the documents because the sole witness examined on behalf of the Board has stated that he does not identify the handwriting of the petitioner and he has never worked at Chembur office where the petitioner was working. Some of the documents have been admitted by the petitioner and therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for respondents, it cannot be said that the enquiry has been held in breach of principles of natural justice. She also submitted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental enquiry. 4 2] Now, if in the light of these rival submissions the record of the case is perused, it becomes clear that in the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has clearly observed that the sole witness examined on behalf of the Board is not reliable because he does not have any personal knowledge of the subject matter of the enquiry, he has never worked at Chembur office where the petitioner was working. Perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the order of dismisal has been made shows that it solely relies on the documents produced on record. Admittedly, originals of those documents were not before the Enquiry Officer. Perusal of the deposition of the sole witness shows that he in clear terms states that he has never worked at Chembur office where the petitioner was working. He has stated that he does not even know whether the petitioner was working during the year 1991-92. The charges against the petitioner relate to that period. He has clearly stated that he does not identify the handwriting of the petitioner because 5 he has never worked with the petitioner. After going through the deposition, we do not find that the witness has proved any of the documents which have been produced on record. Though it is true that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental enquiries, the documents which are produced during the departmental enquiry have to be proved by a person who either knows the handwriting of the person who has written the documents or who can identify signature of the person. Even in departmental enquiry, before relying on contents of the documents for recording finding of guilt, the contents of the documents have to be proved by a proper witness. We find that the criticism of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner that the sole witness examined on behalf of the Board has not proved any of the documents, he has not stated that the documents which are produced are from the record regularly maintained by the Board, in our opinion, is justified. It is clear that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct alleged against him only on the basis of 6 the documents cannot be sustained in the absence of documents being proved. But the fact remains that the misconduct that is alleged against the petitioner is of a very serious nature and it is possible that at the relevant time, the Board may be facing difficulties because of involvement of so many persons in the alleged misconduct. In our opinion, therefore, it will be appropriate to grant liberty to the Board to hold a fresh departmental enquiry. The learned counsel appearing for Board stated before us that the Board proposes to hold a fresh departmental enquiry. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3] The order dated 25th November 1997 dismissing the petitioner from service is set aside, the petitioner is reinstated in service. However, as at the time of his dismissal, admittedly, the petitioner was under suspension, the petitioner will continue under suspension during the pendency of the fresh departmental enquiry against the 7 petitioner for the same misconduct. The Board shall, however, pay to the petitioner subsistence allowance to which he is entitled in accordance with law from the date of dismissal i.e. 25th November 1997 till today and continue to pay the same in accordance with law during the pendency of the fresh departmental enquiry. In view of the pendency of the matter for so many years the Board shall hold departmental enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. The leaned counsel appearing for respondents states that the arrears of subsistence allowance shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. The statement is accepted. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )