Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 227 (TS)

Action Aid Association v. Gummadavelly Rajashekar

2026-02-03

RENUKA YARA

body2026
ORDER : Renuka Yara, J. 1. Heard Ms. Sree Ramya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U.D.Jai Bhima Rao, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the record. 2. The Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioners/petitioners/ respondents aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2025 in I.A.No.29 of 2024 in I.D.No.1 of 2023 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal), wherein, the said petition filed to receive additional documents at the stage of appeal has been dismissed. 3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioners herein have initiated disciplinary inquiry against the respondent herein under POSH Act/Rules and on the basis of the inquiry report, issued letter dated 07.03.2023 terminating the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, challenging the inquiry report, the respondent filed Appeal No.1 of 2023 alleging violation of principles of natural justice apart from other irregularities in conducting the inquiry and submitting inquiry report. During pendency of said appeal filed by the respondent, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.29 of 2024 in I.D.No.1 of 2023 to receive additional documents filed on behalf of the petitioner Nos.1 to 4. 4. Upon filing of said I.A, the respondent herein filed counter-affidavit opposing the receipt of additional documents consisting of WhatsApp group conversations and screenshots. 5. Upon considering the case of both the rival parties, the Tribunal dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred. 6. In grounds of revision, the petitioners have pleaded that the Tribunal has erred in considering the fact that appeal was a statutory appeal and the scope of enquiry for receiving additional material or evidence can be entertained and the same cannot be opposed. The respondents have taken objections about the cause title in the Interlocutory Application being incorrect warranting correction twice. Further, the respondent took objection about the signature of the deponent therein being forged. Lastly, additional documents filed were after filing of written arguments and commencement of oral arguments. All the aforementioned objections were not taken by the respondent about the contents of the pen drives or the documents of WhatsApp conversation before the appellate authority. The revision petitioners have filed list of documents including the interrogation report of the Internal Complaints Committee which is completely based on audio recordings about which the respondent is fully aware. All the aforementioned objections were not taken by the respondent about the contents of the pen drives or the documents of WhatsApp conversation before the appellate authority. The revision petitioners have filed list of documents including the interrogation report of the Internal Complaints Committee which is completely based on audio recordings about which the respondent is fully aware. Further, a person can have more than one type of signature and the difference in signatures in itself cannot be a ground to dispute the documents. Reference is made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Star Paper Mills Limited v. M/s. Beharilal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal No.4102 of 2013) , wherein it is held that once a signature is not denied, the author of the document need not be examined. Though a certificate under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam has been filed, said certificate was not considered claiming the same to be valid. The main appeal is posted for final hearing and therefore, receipt of additional documents is a must. As such, the petitioners pray that the revision be allowed with a direction to receive the additional documents. 7. The respondent opposed the petition alleging that the scope of enquiry for entertaining additional documents is limited and cannot be entertained by contravening established legal principles. The Interlocutory Application filed for receiving documents has been returned thrice with objections. The signature of the deponent Sandeep Chachra does not match with his signature on vakalathnama. Further, there are no signatures of deponent by notary in the counter of the respondent in the main appeal. Already, written arguments have been filed and oral arguments have commenced. The additional evidence sought to be adduced is in violation of Section 16 of POSH Act and not in accordance with Section 63 of BSA. Further, non-furnishing of documents received from the aggrieved woman to the respondent within a period of 7 days is violative of Section 7 of the POSH Act. The documents are unrelated to the relevant date. The counter in the main appeal does not contain signature of the deponent or his counsel, yet, it has been notarized and appears to be fraudulent. 8. The documents are unrelated to the relevant date. The counter in the main appeal does not contain signature of the deponent or his counsel, yet, it has been notarized and appears to be fraudulent. 8. During arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it is just and necessary that the additional documents be received in order to present the case of the petitioners in effective manner. There is a reference to those audio clippings in Ex.A2 and therefore, said audio recordings may be received. Further, a certificate is issued under Section 63 of BSA and therefore, there is basis for receiving the remaining electronic evidence. The additional evidence sought to be received is relevant for the purpose of proving the petitioners’ case before the appellate authority. 9. The learned counsel for respondent argued that accepting the documents would expand the scope of the enquiry. Besides, these documents were not furnished before the enquiring authority and receiving said documents would cause immense prejudice to the respondent. It is argued that the appeal itself was filed on account of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners were not diligent in filing the Interlocutory Applications. Lastly, it is also argued that the requirements under Section 63 of BSA are not complied and therefore, the WhatsApp messages which is electronic evidence, cannot be received. 10. When the record is perused, it is seen that the petitioners have filed the affidavit for receiving additional documents without giving a single reason for receiving them at a belated stage. Except for stating that the documents filed along with the Interlocutory Application are required for substantiating the case of the petitioners, no other reason is stated. The claim of the petitioners for receiving additional documents is extremely vague to say the least. Ideally, the affidavit should contain the reasons for non-production of the documents sought to be received in appeal before the Inquiry authority. When the documents are produced before the Enquiry authority, the respondent herein would get an opportunity to peruse the documents and also cross examine the petitioners’ witnesses in his defence. 11. Accepting additional evidence in appeal would deprive the respondents’ opportunity to counter said additional evidence. 12. Further, with the evidence available, the petitioners have proven the allegations against the respondent and penalty has been imposed. 11. Accepting additional evidence in appeal would deprive the respondents’ opportunity to counter said additional evidence. 12. Further, with the evidence available, the petitioners have proven the allegations against the respondent and penalty has been imposed. Such being the case, the only requirement for the petitioners would be to rely upon the evidence already adduced which had successfully proven their case against the respondent. Instead, on account of filing of the appeal by the respondent, the petitioners herein are seeking indulgence of the Appellate authority to receive additional documents. Probably, the case of the petitioners could have been entertained if any valid reason was given for non-production of the documents at the earliest point of time before the Enquiry authority. In the absence of valid reason, receiving the documents at the appeal that too after filing of the written arguments and after commencement of the oral arguments seems unjust and unreasonable. 13. The respondent for his part opposed the I.A stating that the enquiry itself was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, that an appeal is filed challenging the finding given by the Enquiry authority. Such being the case, permitting the petitioners to adduce additional evidence would cause immense prejudice to his case in the appeal. According to the respondent, the WhatsApp communications have been created by the petitioners by constituting a WhatsApp group for generating the chats. Said WhatsApp chat has disclosed that the respondent’s case has been disclosed to third parties in violation of Section 16 of POSH Act. The WhatsApp chats have been created as evidence to cause prejudice to the respondent’s case. Having regard to both the contentions, this Court deems it inappropriate to allow electronic evidence i.e. WhatsApp chats and audio recording to be adduced as additional evidence in appeal, more when certificate under Section 63 of BSA has not been complied with. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.