Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Order/Judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3576 of 2019 allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner) and quashing the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Additional Secretary-cum-disciplinary authority, Damodar Valley Corporation vide No.F/AS/PS/ Conf./F-03/30 whereby the petitioner was imposed punishment of removal from the services of the corporation with immediate effect as well as the order dated 18.06.2019 bearing No. HR/Disc. & Comp/Complaints & DP ‘C’ & ‘D’/48/913 passed by the Executive Director (HR)-cum-Appellate Authority, Damodar Valley Corporation whereby the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, was affirmed.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is as follows: -

                  (i) The petitioner was initially appointed as casual worker in Soil Conservation Department of Damodar Valley Corporation at Hazaribagh on 01.10.1974 and worked there on daily wages from 01.10.1974 to 08.01.1994.

                  (ii) The petitioner along with others filed writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 1907 of 1992(R) on 03.07.1992 seeking their regularisation and pursuant to the order dated 22.07.1993 passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner was regularized on 10.01.1994. Moreover, in all the documents including PAN Card, Voter List, Adhaar Card, etc., his name was recorded as Sukar Koeri S/o Late Nanhu Koeri.

                  (iii) At the fag end of service of the petitioner, a complaint was filed by one Gangadhar Mahto, so called son of Late Sukar Koeri (hereinafter referred as the complainant) and on the basis of the said complaint, the petitioner was served a memo of charge dated 11.05.2017 alleging that his actual name was Budhan Mahto and he had secured employment in DVC by impersonating himself as his elder brother namely Sukar Koeri who was working in Soil Conservation Department of DVC as casual worker, however, he had already died on 04.07.1979.

                  (iv) Thereafter, the Director, Rehabilitation & Land Acquisition Department (DRLA), DVC, Hazaribag was appointed as enquiry officer who submitted the enquiry report stating that the writ petitioner had impersonated himself as Sukar Koeri whereas his actual name was Budhan Mahto and had continued in the service of DVC on the assumed name. Hence, he derived monitory benefit as wages/salary along with other consequential benefits by way of impersonation, forgery and cheating.

                  (v) A copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the writ petitioner which was received by him on 15.11.2018 in response to which he submitted representation dated 19.11.2018 objecting the findings of the enquiry report.

                  (vi) Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 07.12.2018 imposed punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner with immediate effect observing that all charges levelled against him were proved beyond reasonable doubt which were grave in nature involving impersonation, falsification, forgery and mis-appropriation of government/corporation’s fund.

                  (vii) The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority on 08.01.2019, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2019 affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3576 of 2019 challenging the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the appellate authority.

4. The said writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 01.10.2024 quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. It has been observed in the said order that since the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, no order of reinstatement can be passed, however, he has been held entitled for all consequential benefits as well as 25% of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of his actual superannuation.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned single judge has failed to take into consideration that the exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited, except in such case where the enquiry report is found completely perverse. On the contrary, if it is established that the finding is based on some legal evidence by due compliance of natural justice, the power of judicial review is not to be exercised by the High Court.

6. It is also submitted that in the present case, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges levelled against him based on the documents produced by the complainant who is the nephew of the petitioner and only after a full- fledged departmental proceeding as well on complying the principles of natural justice, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment upon him. Moreover, the appellate authority has also passed the reasoned order dated 18.06.2019 affirming the order of the disciplinary authority.

7. It is further contended that though the complainant was not examined during the enquiry, all the documents including the copy of the allegations levelled by the complainant were served to the petitioner which would clearly suggest that the enquiry officer had extended all possible opportunities to the petitioner to represent his case. Moreover, there was no requirement of appearance of complainant during the disciplinary proceeding since the enquiry was primarily about the actual identity of the petitioner.

8. It is argued that though the claim of the petitioner is that the order of punishment of removal from service was passed against him without complying the principles of natural justice, however the record would suggest that the petitioner had actively participated in the enquiry proceeding and had responded to the questions asked from him by the enquiry officer. Moreover, he had also examined the documents filed by the complainant.

9. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot claim a right of service or appointment or continuity of service particularly when it is established that he deliberately withheld material information relating to his antecedents or identity. Any relaxation given to him would run against the settled procedure established under Office Memorandum dated 19.05.1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India in respect of action to be taken for misconduct committed by the government servants read with Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which mandates that when a government servant furnishes false information to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service and should be dismissed after conducting an inquiry.

10. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 01.10.2024, are not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case since the petitioner was given due opportunity to counter the veracity of the documents submitted by the complainant before the department.

11. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore & Others Vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 105 has held that quasi-judicial bodies are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial in the Courts nor they are bound by the strict rules of evidence.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants puts further reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (1978) 3 SCC 366 wherein it has been held that the minimum requirement of the rules of natural justice is that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence i.e., evidential material which points towards the guilt of the delinquent with some degree of certainty in respect of the charge levelled against him. Suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic inquiries.

13. It has further been held that if the disciplinary inquiry has been conducted fairly without bias or predilection in accordance with the relevant disciplinary rules and the Constitutional provisions, the order passed by such authority should not be interfered with in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, merely on the ground that it was based on evidence which would be insufficient for conviction of the delinquent on the same charge at a criminal trial.

14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the complainant, who had made the allegation of impersonation against the petitioner, based on which, the departmental proceeding was initiated against him, was not examined during the inquiry and on this score alone the order of punishment of the petitioner’s removal from service was liable to be vitiated. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner vide order dated 01.10.2024 and the same needs no interference of this court.

15. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570.

16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

17. On perusal of the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single judge, it would appear that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed observing that the complainant had never turned up during the entire departmental proceeding to substantiate his complaint against the petitioner to the effect that he had taken service in DVC by impersonating himself as Sukar Koeri who was said to be his elder brother. His non-appearance has been held as a serious defect in the departmental proceeding vitiating the entire charge.

18. In the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (1999) 8 SCC 582, the sole ground urged by the appellant-Hardwari Lal was non-observance of the principles of natural justice in not examining the complainant and a witness, namely, Jagdish Ram during the departmental proceeding. Their Lordships held that examination of these two witnesses would have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virender Singh was correct or not and to establish that he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the appellant to the hospital for medical examination, would have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. Finally, Their Lordships quashed the order of dismissal of the appellant by observing that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in forming opinion that non-examination of these two persons was not of material importance.

19. The learned Single Judge has further held that since the petitioner had already retired from service and the relationship of employee and employer had already ceased, no direction could be passed to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding. The learned Single Judge finally held the petitioner entitled for all consequential benefits as well as for 25% of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of his actual superannuation.

20. Before this court, the appellants have not disputed the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the complainant was not examined during the departmental proceeding.

21. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra.), the fact was that the management had only tendered the documents on which it had relied upon without examining the relevant witnesses to prove the said documents. Their Lordships have held that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during inquiry by the enquiry officer against the delinquent by itself cannot be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding.

22. One of the basic requirements of principles of natural justice is that all the departmental witnesses in the departmental proceeding must be examined in presence of the delinquent so as to afford him ample opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses so as to take out contradiction (if any) from their statements as well as from the documents produced by them. If the management relies upon the documents produced by the complainant without examining him during the inquiry, then the delinquent is deprived of an opportunity to controvert the content of the documents so produced by the complainant causing serious prejudice to him. Thus, non-examination of the complainant during the departmental proceeding would vitiate the entire proceeding on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.

23. In the present case, since the complainant had alleged against the petitioner that he got himself engaged in the service of DVC by impersonating as Sukar Koeri who was said to be his elder brother, the burden was upon the management to prove the said allegation against the petitioner and in order to discharge the said burden, the management was duty bound to produce the complainant during the enquiry so as to prove all the documents relied upon by the management, however by not producing the complainant, the management inflicted serious prejudice against the petitioner by depriving him of the opportunity to controvert the veracity of the complaint.

24. Moreover, the petitioner had submitted various documents i.e., PAN Card, Voter Card, Adhaar Card etc. in support of his actual identity. Moreover, he was regularized in the service by the management of DVC only after getting satisfied that he was Sukar Koeri. It is also relevant to note that no objection was raised from any corner during his entire service career and only at the fag end of his service, he was imposed punishment of removal from service on the allegation of impersonation levelled against him by the complainant namely Gangadhar Mahto who was said to be the nephew of the petitioner by committing serious procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding as highlighted hereinabove.

25. For the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3576 of 2019.

26. Before parting with the case, it would be appropriate to mention here that the observation made by this court in the present order as well as by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 01.10.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No.3576 of 2019, may not be inferred as any finding of fact regarding the identity of the petitioner, rather the same is confined to the legal infirmity found in the departmental proceeding conducted by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the present order as well as the order of the learned Single Judge shall not be construed as a proof of the petitioner’s identity.

27. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

28. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.