Documents Sourced From Official Records Must Still Be Proved Through Witnesses In Departmental Inquiries: Delhi High Court Upholds Relief To Former Jamia Professor
The Bench noted that the employer is required to establish the authenticity and contents of relied-upon documents through witnesses capable of speaking to them.
The Delhi High Court has held that documents relied upon in disciplinary proceedings cannot be treated as evidence merely because they originate from official records or are produced through a Presenting Officer. The Court observed that the contents of such documents must be proved through competent witnesses before they can form the basis of a finding of misconduct.
Upholding a Single Judge's decision in favour of former Jamia Millia Islamia Professor M.G. Husain, the Bench dismissed the University's appeal challenging the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed upon him.
The Bench observed that even though strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental inquiries, the employer is nevertheless required to establish the authenticity and contents of relied-upon documents through witnesses capable of speaking to them. In the absence of such proof, the Inquiry Officer could not have relied on those documents to conclude the employee's guilt.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed, “…even if the documents relied upon by the employer which formed basis of the conclusion of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer were sourced from official sources or were produced by the Presenting Officer, the contents thereof ought to have been proved by the appellant University by producing some witnesses, in absence whereof, we are of the opinion, that in view of the afore-discussed principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Inquiry Officer has completely misdirected himself”.
Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sumita Hazarika appeared for the respondent.
The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the former Professor and Head of the Department of Psychology, on allegations relating to financial irregularities and administrative misconduct. Following an inquiry, the University initially imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was later modified by the Executive Council to compulsory retirement with effect from the date of suspension.
Challenging the action, Husain approached the High Court, where a Single Judge quashed the charge-sheet, inquiry proceedings and punishment orders, while declaring him entitled to notional reinstatement till the date of superannuation along with consequential benefits.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's decisions in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh (2025) INSC 555 the Bench reiterated that a document does not prove itself and cannot be relied upon merely because it forms part of official records.
The Court also found fault with the Inquiry Officer's treatment of defence evidence, noting that the testimonies of defence witnesses were brushed aside as being of "no consequence" without any discussion or reasons.
“Thus, in our opinion learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the documents tendered by the University in evidence without having been proved by the witness could not have been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges. We have also perused the original proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry which were tendered by the learned counsel for the appellant University for our examination during the course of the hearing. On scrutinizing the inquiry proceedings what we find is that admittedly the Inquiry Officer has placed reliance on certain documents, which were tendered during the course of disciplinary enquiry by the appellant University, to conclude the guilt of the respondent, however, such documents were not proved by examining any witness. The Inquiry Officer has recorded in this regard that since such documents were obtained from official record and were received from the Presenting Officer, the question of proof of document did not arise”, the Bench noted.
While observing that ordinarily a defective disciplinary inquiry may be remanded for fresh consideration, the Bench declined to do so in the present case. It noted that the proceedings had originated in 2011, the writ petition remained pending for several years, and the employee had already attained the age of superannuation.
Consequently, the appeal filed by Jamia Millia Islamia was dismissed, leaving intact the relief granted by the Single Judge.
Cause Title: Jamia Millia Islamia v. M G Hussain (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5059-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Pritish Sabharwal, S.C,. Shweta Singh, Sanjeet Kumar, Abhishek Malhotra, Shiv Chopra, Adesh Lohia, & Mehmish Khan, Advocates.
Respondent: Sumita Hazarika & Prakhar Gupta, Advocates.