The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of administrative law: the burden of proving misconduct in departmental proceedings cannot be shifted to the absent delinquent. Even when a government servant fails to appear before the enquiry officer, the department must still establish its case through proper evidentiary procedures. This judgment clarifies that informal document submissions, unverified by witness testimony, cannot substitute for legally mandated proof.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sukh Pal Singh, served as District Social Welfare Officer in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. He was accused of fraudulent withdrawal of public funds through a local placement agency. The department alleged that he fraudulently drew Rs. 1.77 Lakhs in November 2007 and Rs. 77,814 for the period July to September 2007 for payments to outsourced employees, despite discrepancies between the number of employees reported and actual services rendered.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was serving in the post of District Social Welfare Officer at the time of the alleged misconduct
- The irregular payments were identified during an audit conducted in 2008
- A charge-sheet was issued on 15.03.2010, detailing two specific charges of financial fraud and misappropriation
- The petitioner submitted his written explanation on 20.04.2010
- The disciplinary authority, unsatisfied with the explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer on 12.07.2010
- The Enquiry Officer issued notice for the enquiry hearing on 05.11.2010, which was served on the petitioner
- The petitioner did not appear on the scheduled date of enquiry (05.11.2010) or on any subsequent dates
- The Enquiry Officer proceeded to rely on documents submitted by departmental witnesses without examining them under oath
- The Enquiry Report was submitted on 18.01.2011, concluding that the charges were proved
- The petitioner submitted his reply to the Enquiry Report on 05.03.2011
- The disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal on 02.12.2014
- The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 04.06.2015
- Further representations were submitted on 10.08.2015 and 22.11.2015, both rejected
- The writ petition was filed on 18.10.2017
Procedural History
- 15.03.2010: Charge-sheet issued
- 20.04.2010: Petitioner’s written explanation submitted
- 12.07.2010: Enquiry Officer appointed
- 05.11.2010: First notice of enquiry issued; petitioner absent
- 18.01.2011: Enquiry Report submitted based on unverified documents
- 05.03.2011: Petitioner’s reply to Enquiry Report submitted
- 02.12.2014: Order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority
- 04.06.2015: Appeal dismissed by appellate authority
- 10.08.2015 & 22.11.2015: Representations rejected
- 18.10.2017: Writ Petition filed before Rajasthan High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order dated 02.12.2014 and the appellate order dated 04.06.2015, and requested that the matter be remanded for a fresh enquiry conducted in accordance with law. He also sought continuation of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the fresh proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a departmental enquiry can be deemed valid when the enquiry officer relies solely on informally submitted documents, without examining departmental witnesses under oath, merely because the delinquent employee failed to appear.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the enquiry violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Even in the absence of the delinquent, the department bears the burden of proving charges through properly recorded evidence. The documents relied upon were not formally marked, no witness was examined, and no opportunity for cross-examination was afforded. Relying on State of U.P. v. Mohd. Noor and K. Srinivasulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was contended that an enquiry based on unverified documents is a nullity.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the petitioner’s repeated absence amounted to waiver of his right to participate. The documents submitted by the departmental witnesses were official records and internal audit reports, which were sufficient to establish the charges. Citing Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, they argued that technicalities should not override substantive findings of fraud.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the procedural requirements under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the principles of natural justice. It held that the absence of the delinquent does not absolve the department of its obligation to prove the charges. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution throughout the enquiry.
"The absence of the petitioner only results in forfeiture of his right to cross-examine, not in the automatic acceptance of unverified documents as evidence. The department must still bring its case on record through proper procedure."
The Court rejected the argument that official records alone suffice without witness testimony. It noted that documents, even if generated internally, require authentication through examination of the person who prepared or attested them. The Enquiry Officer’s reliance on unmarked, unexamined documents rendered the entire proceeding legally defective.
The Court further observed that the Enquiry Officer’s conduct amounted to a failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which mandates that evidence be recorded in writing and witnesses be examined under oath. The informal submission of documents cannot be treated as evidence unless formally brought on record.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The Court set aside the order of dismissal dated 02.12.2014 and the appellate order dated 04.06.2015. The matter was remanded for a fresh enquiry to be conducted by the same or another Enquiry Officer, with proper notice to both parties. The interregnum period from the date of dismissal to the date of this order (29.04.2026) is deemed suspension, and the petitioner is entitled to 50% subsistence allowance, to be calculated and paid forthwith, continuing until conclusion of the fresh enquiry. The fresh enquiry shall be concluded within six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist that all documents in departmental enquiries be formally marked, authenticated, and supported by witness testimony
- Even if the delinquent is absent, the department must still examine its own witnesses under oath
- Relying on internal reports or unverified files without corroboration renders the enquiry void
Absence Does Not Equate to Admission
- The delinquent’s non-appearance cannot be treated as acquiescence or admission of guilt
- The burden of proof remains with the department at all stages
- Courts will not uphold findings based on hearsay or unauthenticated documents, regardless of the seriousness of the allegation
Fresh Enquiry Must Follow Due Process
- The fresh enquiry must begin from the stage of issuing notice and recording evidence
- Previous findings cannot be carried forward
- Subsistence allowance must be paid during the pendency of the fresh proceedings
- Failure to conclude within six months may attract contempt proceedings
