Strict Rules Of Evidence Not Applicable To A Departmental Enquiry: Supreme Court Allows Placing Of Case Diary On Record

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that strict rules of prove are not appropriate to a Departmental Enquiry.

 With this view, Justice L Nageshwar Rao and Justice BR Gavai permitted an Extra District Judge within the state of Uttarakhand, who was confronting a departmental enquiry, to put of record the case diary.

 On November 24, 2020, the petitioner-ADJ had recorded an application for putting certain records on record before the Enquiry Officer which was rejected on the ground that the Presenting Officer had made an underwriting on the reports saying that they did not merit to be conceded in see of Areas 85A and 85B of the Indian Evidence Act.

 Another application was the recorded before the Enquiry Officer giving an extra list of witnesses to be produced in the enquiry. The same was moreover expelled on January 19, 2021. Aggrieved by the expulsion of this application, the applicant filed a summons appeal within the High Court of Uttarakhand fighting that the records were pertinent and the Presenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer had committed an blunder in not allowing them to be shown within the enquiry.

 The High Court watched that there was no mistake committed by the Enquiry Officer as the applicant was allowed to show prove on his sake. It had allowed certain documents to be shown within the enquiry, in any case, it did not bargain with the duplicate of the case journal gotten by the applicant beneath the Right to Information Act. The division seat found that the case journal which the solicitor needed to be displayed was not allowed by the Enquiry Officer on the ground of need of confirmation for the said archive as required beneath the arrangements of the Evidence Act.

 This provoked it to comment that:

 “Strict rules of prove are not appropriate to a Departmental Enquiry. There’s no bias caused to anybody in case the case journal is set on record. The case journal which is appeared as exhibit 44 within the application by the petitioner shall be shown as a archive within the departmental enquiry.”

 Accordingly, the Extraordinary Leave Request was arranged of. The Court too requested that the said departmental enquiry may be sped up and completed soon.

 Cause Title: KANWAR AMNINDER SINGH v THE HON’BLE High COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

 Counsel For Applicant: Senior Advocate Devdutt Kamat beside AOR Sachin Sharma and Advocates Anil Kumar Gulati, Satyavrat Sharma and Rahul Gaur.

 Counsel For Respondent: AOR D. Bharathi Reddy