LexL.L.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. versus RAM PAL SINGH BISEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B · [2010] 3 S.C.R. 438 L.l.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM PAL SINGH BISEN (Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007 ) MARCH 16, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 12 r.2 - Mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its c proof - On facts, in a suit by employee challenging order of dismissal, employer-appellant did not lead any oral evidence yet some of the documents filed by him were exhibited - Employee was not served with any notice of admission or denial of documents during trial - In the absence of oral o evidence tendered by employer and in absence of putting .his own defence to the employee during his cross examination in the court, the documents filed by employer and marked as exhibit would not establish the case of employer - Evidence Act, 1872. E Natural justice: Dismissal order - Neither the copy of F inquiry report was made available to dismissed employee nor the reason for dismissal disclosed in show cause notice - Held: There was violation of principles of natural justice - Service law - Dismissal. Evidence Act, 1872: Contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence - Admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth - Documents when not produced and G marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court - Contents of the document are not proved by merely filing in a court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent was dismissed from service. His representation to the employer-appellant that reasonable H 438 L.l.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM PAL SINGH BISEN 439 and sufficient opportunity of hearing during the domestic A inquiry was not given, was rejected. The departmental appeal was also rejected. Respondent filed a suit challenging his dismissal. Appellant did not lead any oral evidence yet some of the documents filed by it were exhibited. Appellant also did not serve any notice of B admission or denial of documents on the respondent during trial as contemplated under Order 12 r.2 CPC. Trial Court held that there was complete violation of principles of natural justice as neither the copy of inquiry report was made available to respondent nor it was disclosed in c show cause notice as to on what premise finding of guilt was recorded by inquiry officer or by Departmental authority while passing order of dismissal. Trial Court acco.rdingly decreed the suit and directed reinstatement alongwith the consequential benefits. High Court upheld 0 the decision of trial Court. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The defence that was pleaded and set up by the appellants in their written statement was not put fe>rth to the respondent, while he was in the witness box. E The records also did not reveal that procedure as contemplated in Rule 2A of Order XII , CPC was adopted either by the appellants or by the trial Court to prove the documents filed by the appellants and mark them as Exhibits. Thus, no advantage thereof could be accrued F t<> the appellants, even if it is assumP.d that said documents were admitted by respondent and were then exhibited and marked. It is true that failure to prove the defence did not amount to an admission, nor did it rnverse or discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff G but still the duty cast on the defendants. had to be discharged by adducing oral evidence, which the appellants miserably failed to do. Thus looking to the matter from any angle, it is fully established that H 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A appellants had miserably failed to prove and establish - their defence in the case. [Paras 19, 24-25] [445-G-H; 447- B-E] 1.2. Mere admission of document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of 8 exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. Admission by respondent of those documents cannot carry the case of the appellants any further and much to the prejudice of the respondent. It was the duty of the C appellants to prove do.cuments Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-1·0 in accordance with law. Filing of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry would not partake the characfier of admissible evidence in a court of law. The documentary evidence was also required to D be proved by the appellants in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.