THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 3420 of 1999 Dated: 10.06.2010 Between: Rajendra Sahu … Petitioner And 1. Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority) LIC of India, Divisional Office, Visakhapatnam., And another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 3420 of 1999 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 24.01.1998 passed by the 1st respondent – Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam removing the petitioner from service as confirmed on appeal by the 2nd respondent by order dated 25.7.1998 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner herein joined the services of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on 24.03.1991 in a post reserved for Scheduled Tribe. On 28.10.1993 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he produced a forged certificate to substantiate his claim that he belonged to Holva Caste - a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 15.11.1993 denying the allegations. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 12.03.1997, the petitioner was removed from service. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6237 of 1997 contending inter alia that the order of removal was passed without considering his explanation to the show cause notice. This Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the removal order with a direction to the disciplinary authority to consider the petitioner’s explanation and pass orders afresh. Again, by order dated 06.05.1997, the petitioner was removed from service. The said order was challenged by filing W.P.No.13437 of 1997. Pending the said writ petition, the petitioner’s appeal was allowed and the Appellate Authority while setting aside the order of removal dated 06.05.1997, directed the Disciplinary Authority to conduct fresh enquiry. Having regard to the said order, W.P.No.13437 of 1997 was closed. Thereafter, another Enquiry Officer was appointed and while the enquiry was in progress, the petitioner made a request to summon the erst-while Mandal Revenue Officer who gave the caste certificate dated 08.03.1991. The petitioner also requested the Enquiry Officer to call for the records pertaining to the caste certificates dated 17.03.1983 and 13.01.1988 issued earlier by the Tahsildar, Palakonda and Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja respectively. However, without considering the said request, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 03.10.1997 holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Basing on the said report, the disciplinary authority by order dated 24.01.1998 imposed the punishment of removal from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8610 of 1998. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was pending before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter the Appellate Authority by order dated 31.03.1998 while rejecting the petitioner’s appeal confirmed the penalty of removal. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the order of removal passed by the 1st respondent dated 20.04.1998 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent on appeal is arbitrary and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while submitting that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself, vehemently contended that the impugned orders which were ex facie in violation of the principles of natural justice were liable to be set aside on that ground alone. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The charge sheet dated 28.10.1993 was issued alleging that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner dated 08.03.1991 was a forged document. While stating that on enquiry with the Revenue Authorities, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja, by letter dated 6.9.1991 confirmed that the certificate dated 8.3.1991 produced by the petitioner was a forged document, it was alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the appointment against the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribes and that his conduct amounted to breach of regulations 21 and 24 read with regulation 39 (1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 which warranted penal action under Regulation 39 (1) (a) to (g) of the Regulations. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement along with a list of witnesses and documents. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations and requesting to give him an opportunity to cross-examine the revenue authorities who had informed the 1st respondent that the certificate dated 8.3.1991 produced by the petitioner was not genuine. It is to be noticed that the only document included in the list of documents enclosed to the charge-sheet dated 28.10.1993 was the letter dated 6.9.1991 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja. The said letter dated 6.9.1991 which was produced during the enquiry by the Presenting Officer was marked as POD2 and a copy of the said document was furnished to the petitioner. Another letter dated 16.6.1994 said to have been addressed by the Collector, Srikakulam was also produced by the Presenting Officer as additional documentary evidence and the same was marked as POD3, after furnishing a copy of the same to the petitioner. However, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja and the District Collector, Srikakulam i.e., the authors of the letters dated 6.9.1991 and 16.6.1994 respectively or any other person representing them did not appear before the Enquiry Officer to give evidence. As a matter of fact, no witness was examined on behalf of the Corporation to speak about the allegation in the charge-sheet i.e., the certificate dated 8.3.1991 produced by the petitioner was a forged document. The two letters marked as POD2 and POD3 were produced only by the presenting officer and having accepted the same the enquiry officer called upon the petitioner to produce his evidence to prove that the caste certificate dated 8.3.1991 was not a forged document. Though the petitioner produced two Photostat copies of the earlier caste certificates dated 17.9.1983 and 13.1.1988 issued by the Tahsildar, Palakonda and Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja respectively certifying that he belonged to Holva caste (scheduled tribe), the enquiry officer refused to take into consideration the said documents on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original certificates. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made a detailed representation, marked as CSE D3, requesting the enquiry officer to send the signature on the certificate dated 8.3.1991 for verification as to its genuineness. The said request was also rejected observing that it was not in the purview of the enquiry. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner in his evidence before the enquiry officer categorically stated that the caste certificate dated 8.3.1991 was handed over to him by the Village Administrative Officer in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja on 8.3.1991 and the receipt of the same was acknowledged by him by signing in the register. He made a request to call for the said records from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer and also to verify the genuineness of the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja on the certificate dated 8.3.1991. The said request was also not considered and ultimately the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 3.10.1997 concluded that the charge that the petitioner’s caste certificate dated 8.3.1991 was forged was confirmed by the State Government officials vide their letters marked as POD2 and POD3. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the petitioner was removed by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 24.1.1998. The petitioner, while preferring an appeal against the said order of removal, raised a specific contention that the documents relied upon by the Corporation were not marked through the concerned officer and the enquiry was concluded unilaterally without examining any witness on behalf of the Corporation. Without considering the said contention, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed upholding the penalty of removal imposed by the 1st respondent. In the light of the above noticed facts, which are not in dispute, the question that arises for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The law is well-settled that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. Therefore the charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be established by the management not only by placing the relevant material before the enquiry officer but also by proving the same by the process known to law. In the instant case, the sum and substance of the charge against the petitioner is that the caste certificate dated 8.3.1991 produced by him was a forged document. In other words, the said certificate did not emanate from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja. The charge-sheet shows that the said allegation was made based upon a letter dated 6.9.1991 received by registered post from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja. Subsequently, another letter dated 16.6.1994 was also produced before the enquiry officer to substantiate the allegation in the charge-sheet. However the said letters were not marked on behalf of the Corporation through any revenue official who had knowledge about the said documents. Even the concerned official of the Corporation was not examined and the said letters were merely produced by the presenting officer himself. Though the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in toto in a departmental proceeding, the concept of fair play shall be the basis and therefore mere production of the said documents before the enquiry officer does not amount to their proof. Hence, the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in the instant case in accepting POD2 and POD3 on behalf of the Corporation though they were not produced through any witness concerned with the said documents, in my considered opinion is impermissible under law. As could be seen, the enquiry officer had merely proceeded on the assumption that the authenticity of POD2 dated 6.9.1991 which was received from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer by registered post cannot be doubted. As the Corporation failed to lead any evidence on its behalf and the document which formed the basis for the entire action initiated against the petitioner, was not produced through the concerned person, the letter dated 6.9.1991 said to have been received from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja ought not to have been relied upon. Consequently, in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the Corporation’s allegation that the certificate dated 8.3.1991 was a forged document cannot be said to have been established. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner in his explanation as well as in his statement before the enquiry officer categorically denied the allegation and explained that the certificate dated 8.3.1991 was delivered to him by the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja and that he had also signed in the register at the office acknowledging the receipt of the said certificate. Having regard to the specific stand taken by the petitioner, the enquiry officer could have taken steps to get the original records verified in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja or at least steps could have been taken to compare the signatures of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja on the certificate dated 8.3.1991 with any of admitted signatures of the said officer. The failure of the respondents to take steps to get the original records at the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Burja verified, particularly the failure to ascertain the authenticity of the signature on the certificate dated 8.3.1991 undoubtedly resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner. As the truth of the contents of the letter dated 6.9.1991 which was the basis for the entire proceedings could not be proved by the Corporation in accordance with law, the burden of proof cannot be placed on the petitioner to establish that the certificate dated 8.3.1991 was genuine. Thus the entire enquiry was vitiated being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the impugned order of removal passed on the basis of the enquiry report as confirmed by the 2nd respondent on appeal cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry following due process of law in the light of the observations made above. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 10.06.2010 KLP