In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order declining his applications for investigation reports and cross-examination in departmental enquiry proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the applications were vague due to lack of period indication and yielded no evidence of relevance to the charge sheet.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15542 / 2017
Rakesh Sharma S/o Durga Dutt, 4L-39, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Chairman & Managing Director, 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata (west Bengal)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. K. Kohli with Mr. Umashankar Pandey For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
15/09/2017
Aggrieved of the daily order-sheet dated 25th August, 2017, declining the application of the petitioner/charged employee, against whom enquiry proceedings are in progress; the instant writ application has been instituted praying for the following reliefs:
“(a) to pass/issue a rule in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, or any other appropriate writ to direct the learned Enquiry Authority to allow documents to the Petitioner as asked for by him to establish and prove his defense in the subject departmental proceedings.
(b) To pass/issue a rule in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, or any other appropriate writ to direct the learned Enquiry Authority directing him to allow the petitioner the cross examination of the witnesses, if necessary, even outside the contents of the charge sheet and or documents annexed to the charge sheet.
(c) To pass such other or further direction as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
The petitioner in the course of enquiry proceedings moved
(2 of 3)
[CW-15542/2017]
an application on 10th August, 2017, followed by another application on 25th August, 2017, requesting for a copy of the report of investigation conducted by the Audit Department and Head Office (Vigilance), which found that short deposit of cash was in practice even prior to the joining of the petitioner. The petitioner also sought for a copy of the investigation that was conducted by Mr. C. S. Sharma, Mr. S. C. Meena and Mr. Neeraj Jain.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance perused the relevant materials available on record and carefully considered the impugnd order dated 25th August, 2017, declining the application(s) of the petitioner.
The Enquiry Officer dismissed the applications of the petitioner for the documents asked for did not have any period indication, and therefore, the application was vague in nature and was instituted only with the object to delay the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer opined that the documents asked for vide applications dated 10th and 25th August, 2017, are not related to the charge-sheet that is the subject matter of inquiry.
Indisputably, the documents asked for were not indicated with period the documents related to. On being quaired by the Court as to period indication of the documents the learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate and expressed total ignorance. In the singular facts and circumstances of the case at hand the order dated 25th August, 2017, cannot be faulted.
(3 of 3)
[CW-15542/2017]
Accordingly, the writ application is bereaft of any substance
and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
Pooja/21
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow a writ petition seeking production of investigation reports and cross-examination of witnesses in departmental enquiry proceedings when the applications lacked peri
Whether the impugned order declining the applications for inspection of documents and cross-examination ought to be set aside or dismissed.
Rakesh Sharma
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
