JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents, at length. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order as contained in Memo No.5/Aarop-1-555/2014 Ka-7103/Ranchi dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), whereby in a Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was found guilty on the basis of the impugned enquiry report and he was imposed with a punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension, under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. 3. The petitioner was the Settlement Officer at the relevant point of time. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had appointed 27 persons as “Safai Moharir” without following the appointment process and without any advertisement. 5. Since, charge was framed against the petitioner before his superannuation, the enquiry continued and ultimately the petitioner was punished by invoking Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000. 6. After going through the enquiry report which has been annexed with the counter affidavit, I find that the respondents have found the allegation levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Surprisingly, in the entire enquiry report, there is no whisper about any oral or documentary evidence. The Enquiry Officer himself came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved thus he submitted the enquiry report. 7. The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding and the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges levelled in the charge-sheet must be proved by documentary or oral evidence. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The documents, if any, which is relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and contents thereof also needs to be proved by an oral evidence. In absence of any oral evidence, the document, based on which the delinquent employee is punished, cannot be taken as an evidence. Though, the Indian Evidence Act is not strictly applicable so far as departmental proceeding is concerned but when a document needs to be looked into, it has to be proved by an oral evidence. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not sufficient to prove the charge in a departmental proceeding. Witnesses must be examined to prove the said documents. Merely tendering of the document and not proving the contents thereof is not sufficient to prove the charge in a departmental proceeding. The document itself cannot be treated to be an evidence until and unless the same is proved. 8. The aforesaid principle has been led down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 570 The said proposition has been reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 wherein the Enquiry Officer relied upon a document substantiating the irregular transaction, which constituted the basis of enquiry. In the said case, no witnesses were examined to prove the said document in order to establish the charge against the delinquent employee. Recording the aforesaid fact in para-13 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of major punishment is mandatory. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to para-14 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). It is necessary to quote para-14, 15 and 19 of the judgment of Roop Singh Negi (supra), which are as hereunder:- “ 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. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. 19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya Case [ (2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. …” Further, in para-17 of the judgment of Satyendra Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that in a proceeding which led to major penalty, the same gets vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law in absence of any oral evidence whatsoever recorded by the department in support of the charges. It is necessary to quote para-17, which reads as hereunder:- “ 17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. It is necessary to quote para-17, which reads as hereunder:- “ 17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi and Nirmala J. Jhala , we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.” 9. On factual dissection of the case in hand, I find that admittedly neither any oral evidence has been adduced nor a single witness has been examined by the respondents to prove the guilt of this petitioner, which is apparent from the enquiry report itself. In one word, not even a single oral evidence has been adduced to prove the guilt of the petitioner. 10. Only based upon the ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer, the charge against the petitioner was established in the departmental proceeding resulting in deduction of 10% of his pension, which cannot be allowed to be sustained. 11. Thus, this case in hand is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi (Supra) and Saroj Kumar Sinha (Supra). 12. Considering what has been discussed and held above, the impugned order as contained in Memo No.5/Aarop-1-555/2014 Ka- 7103/Ranchi dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), imposing punishment of deduction of 10% pension of the petitioner, being in violation of principles of natural justice, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount which has been deducted from the pension of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed . No order as to costs.