Kolkata: Observing that in a disciplinary proceeding the strict mode of proof prescribed by the Evidence Act shouldn’t be applied with equal rigor, Calcutta High Court allowed release of all benefits to a former NABARD male employee who was suspended for alleged misconduct.
The bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee was moved by NABARD challenging a single bench decision which had set aside the order of the disciplinary authority (DA) and appellate authority (AA), directing the authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner (respondent) within a specified time frame. The respondent did not get paid for the time he was suspended while his pay scale was also reduced.
The respondent was accused of writing obscene words on the walls of the office premises against a woman employee on June 26, 1993. Enquiry revealed the accusations were not proved. But the DA concluded that charges were established.
Two witnesses, including a security guard and a woman, allegedly witnessed the respondent committing the act.
Counsel for NABARD submitted that single bench decision was erroneous since a writ court, during judicial review, should limit its inquiry to the legality of the decision-making process rather than the decision itself.
Respondent’s counsel submitted that the court can examine the evidence if the departmental enquiry decision is found to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. Further, the eyewitness woman’s presence at the spot was disputed.
Court observed that when an authority assumes jurisdiction to perform quasi-judicial functions, it must act fairly, impartially, and without bias or preconceived notions.
“In disciplinary proceedings, the strict mode of proof prescribed by the Evidence Act should not be applied with equal rigor but the substantive rules of evidence based on principles of natural justice cannot be ignored,” the court further observed.
The court, upholding the single bench’s decision, found charges against the respondent were not proved. “Rather than demonstrating how the charges were proven, the (DA) order instead sought to unjustifiably defend the conclusion that the charges were established”.
The deadline for releasing all consequential benefits to the CSE is extended until March- end.