UNION OF INDIA & ORS. vs SURESH KUMAR AZAD

Judgment text excerpt

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2754/2025, CM APPLs. 13142/2025, 13143/2025, 13144/2025 & 13145/2025 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocate versus SURESH KUMAR AZAD .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 05.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal1 has, in the impugned order set aside the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, culminating in a penalty order dated 14 December 2016 on the ground that the charge-sheet issued to the respondent was accompanied with a list of 26 documents on which the petitioner proposed to rely to establish the charges against the respondent, but without any witness named in the list of witnesses annexed to the charge-sheet. Ergo, holds the Tribunal, none of the documents, on which the petitioner relied, was proved in accordance with law. 1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT W.P.(C) 2754/2025 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR Signing Date:07.03.2025 17:06:14 2. Before the Tribunal, the submission of the petitioner, that the charges against the respondent had been rightly found proved, by the Inquiry Officer2 on the basis of the 26 documents enumerated in the list of documents annexed to the charge-sheet, stands recorded. 3. The Tribunal has held that, in the absence of any witness cited by the petitioner to prove the documents, the documents could not have been treated as proved and could not, therefore, be relied upon as establishing the charges against the respondent. 4. The legal position in this regard is settled. The Supreme Court has, thus held, in State of UP v. Saroj Kumar Sinha3 and Roop Singh Negi