9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the respondent(s): Mr. Gaurang Jagodia, A.C to G.P.-II 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the resolution No. 2782/Ranchi dated 08.12.2008, whereby the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Further the punishment order under Section 43(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P.(S) No.5205 of 2018. 5. On the last occasion, learned counsel for the respondents was directed to take instruction from his client and verify as to whether the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that no witnesses were examined and no documents were exhibited was correct or not ? The learned counsel for the respondents on instruct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge is proved. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 in para 14 has held as under: "14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges leveled against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has held that the documents which were produced before the Enquiry Officer needs to be proved. Paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated. 10. Considering the aforesaid judgments, as the case in hand is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as admittedly none of the documents were exhibited, nor any witnesses were examined, I am inclined to quash the entire departmental proceeding including the order of punishment dated 23.01.2019 (Annexure-10). 11. The instant writ petition stands allowed. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
