TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore us from the record as well as during the course of hearing reveal a sorry state of affairs as to the manner in which suit had been contested in the trial court by the appellants herein, abutting gross negligence and callous manner, not even adhering to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act, yet challenging the same before this Court, even after having lost from all courts. 3.Thumb-nail sketch of the facts of the case are as under: 4.Respondent herein original plaintiff was appointed by the appellants/defendants on probation as a Development officer on 5.4.1964. He was confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1966. It is not in dispute that his service conditions were regulated by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as Staff Regulations ) framed in exercise of powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 5.Charge sheet dated 16.4.1974 imputing six charges was served on him. He was also placed under suspension. Supplementary charge sheet was also served on him on 21.10.1974. Mr. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... despite grant of sufficient opportunity, respondent took undue adjournments on various earlier dates or had remained absent, and thereafter deliberately remained absent from the inquiry on 5.1.1976, thereby compelling the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte against him. Thus, even after grant of several opportunities, he cannot legitimately contend that inquiry was hit by the principles of natural justice. 12.Thus, in general, they have denied averments of the plaint in toto and submitted that the suit being mis- conceived deserves to be dismissed with costs. 13.On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, trial court was pleased to frame six issues. The main and pertinent issue was with regard to the fact whether action of the appellants resulting in respondent's dismissal from service, rejection of appeal and further representation, was in violation of the principles of natural justice, if so, then to what reliefs respondent was entitled to. 14.Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that neither copy of Inquiry Report was made available to respondent nor it was disclosed in the show cause notice as to on what premise finding of guilt was recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y learned counsel for appellants, we have categorically gone through the same. It may be mentioned herein that in the same, there was not even a whisper of suggestion made to the plaintiff that he had appeared in the office on 5.1.1976 to collect his suspension allowance yet on being informed by the inquiry officer, that his inquiry too was fixed for the said date, therefore, he should come to attend it, on which respondent had informed the Inquiry Officer that he would appear, after some time along with his witnesses. In other words, even the defence that has been pleaded and set up by the appellants in their written statement was not put forth to the respondent, while he was in the witness box. 20.Thus, the question that arises for consideration is whether in absence of any oral evidence having been tendered by the appellants, and especially in absence of putting their own defence to the respondent during his cross examination in the Court, what is the effect of documents filed by appellants and marked as Exhibits. 21.Despite our persistent requests made to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants they have not been able to show compliance of Order XII Rule 1 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom any angle, it is fully established that appellants had miserably failed to prove and establish their defence in the case. 26.We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above, despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had admitted those documents. Even otherwise, his admission of those documents cannot carry the case of the appellants any further and much to the prejudice of the respondent. 27.It was the duty of the appellants to have proved documents Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-10 in accordance with law. Filing of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry would not partake the character of admissible evidence in a court of law. That documentary evidence was also required to be proved by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do. 28.It is also worthwhile to mention here that one of the complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
