Departmental Inquiry

विभागीय जॉच मे साक्ष्य अधिनियम के प्रावधान कठोरता से लागू नही होते है परन्तु विभागीय जॉच मे भी आरोप को समुचित और विश्वास योग्य साक्ष्य से सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है । संदेह व उपधारणा विभागीय जॉच मे प्रमाण का स्थान नही ले सकते और न ही अनुमान व कल्पना के आधार पर विभागीय जॉच को सिद्ध मानकर दोषसिद्धि की जा सकती है जैसा कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने नरेन्द्र मोहन आर्य विरूद्ध यूनियन इंडिया इन्सुरेन्स कम्पनी लि0 2006 ए0आई0आर0 1748 पैरा-26 और वैक आफॅ इंडिया विरूद्ध डेगला सूर्य नारायण 1999 ए0आई0आर0 2407 पैरा-11 मे प्रतिपादित किया है ।
सेन्ट्रल बैक आफॅ इंडिया विरूद्ध व्ही0सी0जैन 1969 ए0आई0 आर0-983 के पैरा-8 मे माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्धारा यह अभिधारित किया गया है किः-

        The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act.

    
माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने नरेन्द्र मोहन आर्य विरूद्ध यूनियन इंडिया इन्सुरेन्स कम्पनी लि0 2006 ए0 आई0 आर0-1748 के पैरा-26 मे यह अभिधारित किया हैः-

    (1) the enquiry officer is not per- mitted to collect any material from outside sources during the conduct of the enquiry. [See State of Assam and Anr. v. Mahendra Kumar Das and Ors.[ (1970) 1 SCC 709 : AIR 1970 SC 1255] 

 

             (2) In a domestic enquiry fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice [See Khem Chand v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 300 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969) 3 SCC 775]. 

 

    (3) Exercise of discretionary power involve two elements - (i) Objective and (ii) subjective and existence of the exercise of an objective element is a condition precedent for exercise of the subjective element. [See K.L. Tripathi v. State of Bank of India and Ors. [(1984) 1 SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273]. 

 

     (4) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules of the principles of natural justice which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case but the concept of fair play in action is the basis. [See Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1986 SC 995] 

   (5) The enquiry officer is not permitted to travel beyond the charges and any punishment imposed on the basis of a finding which was not the subject-matter of the charges is wholly illegal. [See Director (Inspection and Quality Control) Export Inspection Council of India and Ors. v. Kalyan Kumar Mitra and Ors. [ 1987 (2) CLJ 344].

   (6) Suspicion or presumption cannot take the place of proof even in a domestic enquiry.