D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 12213 (W) of 1997. The learned Single Judge was pleased to quash the order of removal passed after the conclusion of the enquiry with direction to furnish copies of the documents to the delinquent and after the reply being given, to pass a fresh order of punishment.
(2.) Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, points out that the documents on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were not disclosed in the list of documents annexed with the chargesheet. The second ground was that on the self-same allegation, a criminal proceeding was initiated against the delinquent. This proceeding has ended in acquittal. Relying on the decision in Captain M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., 1999(3) SCC 679, he contends that the disciplinary proceeding ought to be quashed. Relying on the decision in Kesoram Cotton Milts Ltd. vs. Gangadhar & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 708, he points out that unless at least two days' time is given before the enquiry begins, the document cannot be relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings. Relying on the decision in Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 1999(2) SCC 10, he points out that unless a document is relied upon in the chargesheet, the same cannot be used in the proceedings. He further contended that non-supply of document is fatal to disciplinary proceedings relying on the decision in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. Lachhman Dass Gupta & Anr., 2001(9) SCC 523. He had drawn our attention to various materials from the Paper Book to substantiate his contention. We will refer to those materials at appropriate stages.
(3.) Mr. Bera, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, had contended that those documents were produced in course of enquiry and the petitioner was given inspection thereof and he never asked for any time. On the other hand, he had raised no objection and had made his submission on the basis of those documents. Therefore, this question would not be fatal. In support, he relied on the decision in Debotosh Pal Choudhury vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., 2002(8) SCC 68. Relying on the decision in High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Udaysingh & Ors., 1997(5) SCC 129, he contends that the standard of proof in domestic enquiry is different from the criminal proceedings before a Court, in order to distinguish the decision in Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra). He also relied on the decision in State of Haryana vs. Balwant Singh, 2003(3) SCC 362, for distinguishing the said decision the ratio decided therein vis-a-vis the present case. According to him, in the present case, the charges are different, the witnesses and the documents relied upon are also different from those relied upon in the criminal case. According to him, there were further materials on which reliance can be placed which, however, was not produced or relied upon before the Criminal Court.;