Court rules disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice due to reliance on unexamined evidence.
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has quashed the order that led to the complete forfeiture of pension for Vilayati Ram, a former government employee. The court, presided over by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, found that the disciplinary proceedings against Ram were fundamentally flawed, primarily due to the reliance on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) without the witness being produced for cross-examination.
The petitioner, Vilayati Ram, was accused of procuring a false caste certificate to secure his employment and was subsequently found guilty in departmental proceedings. However, the High Court highlighted that the disciplinary authority's decision was based on a statement by Mahendra Singh, a Tehsildar, which was recorded during a criminal investigation and not substantiated by direct evidence in the inquiry.
Justice Jain emphasized that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence unless the witness is examined and cross-examined. The court underscored the principles of natural justice, stating that the failure to allow cross-examination of the witness vitiated the disciplinary inquiry.
The court also noted that the petitioner had been acquitted in the related criminal case, and there was no appeal against this acquittal. The Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings had also found Ram not guilty, a finding reversed by the disciplinary authority without proper procedural adherence.
This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the distinct standards of proof required in disciplinary versus criminal proceedings. The court reiterated that while disciplinary inquiries operate on the preponderance of probabilities, they must still adhere to established norms and ensure fairness.
As a result of this ruling, Vilayati Ram is entitled to receive all pension benefits that were withheld due to the now-quashed disciplinary action.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Reliance on statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. without producing the witness for cross-examination violates principles of natural justice. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. lack evidentiary value unless the witness is examined.
Statutory provision(s): Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 162 Cr.P.C., Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958, Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996.
Vilayati Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842724
