JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. : I.A No. 3812 of 2023 The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellants for condonation of delay of 155 days in filing the present appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and being satisfied with the reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 3. I.A No. 3812 of 2023 is accordingly disposed of. L.P.A No. 190 of 2023 4. The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 27.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5205 of 2018 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/respondent has been allowed on the ground of non- examination of witnesses and not proving the documents, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the enquiry report as well as the order of punishment dated 05.04.2016 as contained in Memo no. 1776 and the appellate order as contained in letter no. 2504 dated 14.06.2018 have been quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while the respondent was posted as Forest Range Officer, Madanpur Range, Valmiki Tiger Project Division – 2, Bettiah (Bihar), certain acts of serious financial irregularities involving defalcation of government money were detected against him and he was put under suspension vide notification dated 12.06.2002 issued by the Government of Bihar. A memo of charge was issued against the respondent on 01.10.2002 for having committed financial irregularities and defalcation of government money as well as manipulation of record. The respondent submitted his reply on 31.10.2002 as well as supplementary reply on 31.07.2003 denying the charges levelled against him and vide his letter dated 13.09.2003, he also demanded certain documents/records relating to the charges, but those were not supplied to him. 6. The enquiry officer was appointed by the Government of Bihar and enquiry was conducted on different dates. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 10.08.2004 holding the charges against the respondent as proved and he was issued second show cause notice on 16.04.2005. 7. In the meantime, the respondent was allocated Jharkhand Cadre and he joined his services in Jharkhand. Subsequently, his suspension was revoked vide order dated 08.02.2005 and he was posted in Latehar. The respondent submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 25.05.2005 pointing out the defects in the enquiry report. 7. In the meantime, the respondent was allocated Jharkhand Cadre and he joined his services in Jharkhand. Subsequently, his suspension was revoked vide order dated 08.02.2005 and he was posted in Latehar. The respondent submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 25.05.2005 pointing out the defects in the enquiry report. He further pointed out that similarly situated Forest Range Officer, Manguraha Forest Range, Valmiki Tiger Project, Champaran Division-1, Bettiah (Bihar) and other forest guards were also proceeded departmentally but they were exonerated by the appellate authority. 8. The enquiry officer was requested to provide his opinion on the reply to the second show cause notice filed by the respondent which was received through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar. Thereafter, the order of punishment was issued against him vide memo no. 1766 dated 05.04.2016 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,61,050/- was directed to be recovered from his salary and a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed. 9. The respondent thereafter preferred appeal before the Governor, Jharkhand on 22.08.2016 which was rejected and communicated to him under the signature of Joint Secretary, Government of Jharkhand vide letter no. 2504 dated 14.06.2018. 10. The respondent thereafter filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5205 of 2018 seeking quashing of the order of punishment dated 05.04.2016 and appellate order dated 14.06.2018. The said writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice due to non-examination of witnesses to prove the documents produced by the presenting officer before the enquiry officer. 11. It is further contended that the order of punishment was passed after due compliance of the principles of natural justice and the punishment awarded to the respondent was proportionate to the gravity of charges. 12. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the order of punishment was passed against the respondent after due consideration of his reply. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the order of punishment was passed against the respondent after affording him due opportunity during the enquiry to produce documents/witnesses in his defence. 13. It is further argued that the appeal of the respondent was also rejected after duly considering and carefully examining the grounds taken in appeal. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate that the order of punishment was passed against the respondent after affording him due opportunity during the enquiry to produce documents/witnesses in his defence. 13. It is further argued that the appeal of the respondent was also rejected after duly considering and carefully examining the grounds taken in appeal. Since the entire case was based on documentary evidence, the documents available on record during the enquiry proceeding were themselves sufficient to prove the charge against the respondent. 14. It is also submitted that the documents produced by the presenting officer before the enquiry officer were supplied to the respondent who participated in the entire enquiry proceeding and as such he cannot contend that the impugned order of punishment was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 15. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that an enquiry officer is not supposed to be a representative of the department and his function is to see as to whether there is unrebutted evidence to prove the charge against the delinquent employee. 16. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition since the documents on the basis of which the enquiry officer had submitted his enquiry report and consequently the impugned order of punishment was passed against the respondent, were not proved by examining the witnesses. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 18. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge is not right in interfering with the order of punishment as the same was passed against the respondent after due observance of the principles of natural justice particularly affording proper opportunity to controvert the allegation levelled against him. 19. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein by putting 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 and The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , it has been observed that if the case of the department is based on certain documents, those documents also need to be proved. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 , it has been observed that if the case of the department is based on certain documents, those documents also need to be proved. The relevant witnesses are required to be produced by the department and be examined to prove the documents relied by it. A document which is not proved by oral evidence cannot be taken into consideration to arrive at a conclusion that the charge is proved. 20. We have gone through the judgment of Roop Singh Negi (supra) . Fact in the said case was that the appellant was a Peon in the respondent Bank and he along with others was involved in theft of bank-draft book. An FIR was lodged for the alleged occurrence and after investigation by the police, the appellant and others were prosecuted. The appellant was, however, acquitted by the criminal court. Departmental proceeding was also conducted against the appellant wherein charge against him was held to be proved on the basis of FIR, few other documents and his alleged confession before the police. These documents were, however, not proved in course of departmental enquiry by examining and cross-examining the witnesses. The contentions raised by the appellant were also not considered by the departmental authorities, yet he was dismissed from service. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Paragraph-14 of the said judgment reads as under: - “ 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. 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 investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 21. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 21. We have also perused the judgment of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) , paragraph-28 of which reads thus: “ 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 22. It is no more res-integra that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function and he has a duty to arrive at a finding taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Mere production of document before the enquiry officer by the employer is not sufficient to prove the allegation levelled against an employee, rather the said document is required to be proved by examining the witnesses and the role of the enquiry officer is to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold the charges as proved. 23. In the present case, the contention of the appellants is that the relevant documents were supplied to the respondent and he had taken part in the entire enquiry proceeding and as such, he cannot take a plea that the enquiry officer has found the charges against the respondent proved without any evidence. It is, however, an undisputed fact that the documents which were produced by the presenting officer before the enquiry officer were not proved by examining the witnesses and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra). 24. 24. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5205 of 2018. The present appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. The appellants are directed to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent within four weeks since he has been dragged in unnecessary litigation by filing the present frivolous appeal. 25. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.