- (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the orders dated 15 th July, 2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, 8 th February, 2011 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 17 th December, 2012 passed by the Tribunal amongst other reliefs.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that although the complaint was lodged by one Smti.Prabhawati, it was on the basis of her evidence that the preliminary enquiry report was submitted. Based on such preliminary report memorandum of charge was issued to the delinquent officer. A reply was given thereto and in the disciplinary proceedings in the absence of the complainant, based on the evidence of the complainant before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, an order was passed on 15 th July, 2010. The said order is bad as without examining the complainant and giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner no order could have been passed by the Disciplinary Authority far less passing his order on the evidence disclosed by the complainant during the preliminary enquiry stage. Therefore, the order dated 15 th July, 2010 be set aside so also the order of the Appellate Authority which also has not considered the issues raised by the petitioner and has endorsed the order dated 15 th July, 2010. Proceedings were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal which has also confirmed the orders dated 15 th July, 2010 and 8 th February, 2011 by dismissing the original application filed. Hence this writ petition has been filed for setting aside the orders dated 15 th July, 2010, 8 th February, 2011 and 17 th December, 2012.
(3.) EXAMINATION of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is the Enquiring Officer, as a witness cannot form the basis of the orders passed, as it is the complainant who must prove her case and having not come forward to do so, her evidence at the preliminary stage could not have been relied on. Therefore, orders be passed as sought. Counsel for the respondents submits that evidence in departmental proceedings varies from the criminal proceedings and strictness applied in criminal proceedings should not be made applicable to the departmental proceedings. The complainant had deposed before the Enquiry Officer at the time of preparation of the preliminary enquiry report and therefore, evidence submitted then was sufficient for passing the order dated 15 th July, 2010. Orders could have been passed by the Disciplinary Authority even in the absence of the complainant during the departmental proceedings. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is on a consideration of facts. Similarly the order of the Tribunal is also reasoned. Therefore, this writ petition calls for no interference and no order need be passed thereon.;