L.L.C. OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRAM PAL SINGH BISEN

                      · [2010] 3 S.C.R. 438


A                   L.l.C. OF INDIA AND ANR.
                                 v.
                      RAM PAL SINGH BISEN
                  (Civil Appeal No. 893 of 2007 )
                        MARCH 16, 2010
B
     [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
    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.
F
      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 accordance with the
  provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to
  do. Tile courts have committed no error in coming to the
  conclusion that respondent was denied opportunity of
  hearing, that being so, whole proceedings stand vitiated
E by non-adherence to the principles of natural justice.
  [Paras 26-27, 30] [447-F; 448-A-B, E-F]
       2. Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary
  that cantents of documents are required to be proved
  either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most,
F admission of documents may amount to admission of
  contents but not its truth. Documents having not been
  produced and marked as required under the Evidence
  Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the
  document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court.
G Looking to the manner in which the case was conducted
  in the trial Court, nothing can be done to grant any relief
  to the appellants. Respondent was able to successfully
  prove that there was denial of opportunity to him in the
  Departmental Enquiry. In this view of the matter, all
H subsequent actions taken thereto, would automatically
    J. ,\~   I


 L.l.C: OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM PAL.·SINGH BISEN 441
                                                1··
                                         , , .' /
                                        ;; IT   • /



· fail. The courts below committid>no error in decreeing              A
  the suit of the respondent. However the question of his
  re-instatement would not arise as respondent already
  rietired in the year 2000, after having attained age of
  superannuation. It could only be a case of some
  monetary benefit to him. In view of his superannuation,             B
  it would neither be fit nor proper to direct a fresh inquiry
  ti:> be conducted against him. [Paras 31 and 34) [448-F-
  t-I; 449-D-E]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 893              C
 of 2007.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 30.9.2005 of !he High
 Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B.
 Civil Special Appeal No. 42 of 1996.
                                                                      D
     P.S. Patwalia, Ramamoorthy, Indra Sawheny for the
 Appellants.

       Chandan Ramamurthi for the R~spondent.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     E

        DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Ignorance is a bliss, especially
 in the vast field of law, stands established from the narration of
 facts of this appeal as would fully expose it. Against findings
 of factvide judgment and decree recorded by Additional
                                                                      F
 DistrictJudge No.2, Ajmer ir:i Civil Suit No. 93of1982 (10/80),
 decided on 285.1993, confirmed in S.B. First appeal No. 178
 o.f 1993 by learned Single Judge of the High .Court of Judicature
 of Rajasthan at Jaipur and. further affirmed in Special Appeal
 (Civil) No. 42 of 1996 by Division Bench of the said Court,          G
 decided on 30.9.2005, unsuccessful appellants/ defendants are
 before us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.

      2. Needless to say the facts unfolded before us from the
 record as well as during the course of hearing reveal a sorry ·
 state
    . of affairs as to the manner i.n. which suit had been H
    442     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010] 3 S.C.R.


A contested in the trial court by the appellants herein, abutting
  gross negligence and callous manner, not even adhering to the
  provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian
  Evidence Act, yet challenging the same before this Court, even
  after having lost from all courts.
B
       3. Thumb-nail sketch of the facts of the case are as under:

       4. Respondent herein original plaintiff was appointed by
  the appellants/defendants on probation as a Development
  officer on 5.4.1964. He was confirmed on the said post on
C 1.4.1966. It is not in dispute that his service conditions were
  regulated by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)
  Regulations, 1960 (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Staff
  Regulations") framed in exercise of powers conferred under
  clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 49 of Life Insurance
D Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").

        5. Charge sheet dated 16.4.1974 imputing six charges
   was served on him. He was also placed under suspension.
  ·Supplementary charge sheet was also served on him on
   21.10.1974. Mr. RS. Maheshwari was appointed as Inquiry
E ptticer, who after completion of inquiry proceedings furnished /
   his report to Disciplinary Authority on 29.01.1976. On the basis
   of this, respondent was served with show-cause notice on
   23.2.1976 stating inter-alia that in view of the fact that some of
F th-e serious charges stood proved against him, why order of
   dismissal from service be not passed against him.

       6. Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause
  notice on 02.04.1976, pointing out irregularities committed
  during the course of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. His
G categorical case in reply was that he has not been given
  adequate, proper, reasonable and sufficient opportunity of
  hearing during the domestic inquiry. Therefore, the whole
  inquiry stood vitiated on the principles of natural justice. It
  deserves to be quashed and no action on such an inquiry report
H can be taken against him.
L.1.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM' PAL SINGH BISEN 443
                [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
     7. However, without taking note of the submissions of the        A
respondent, appellants by non speaking order and further
without disclosing any opinion, on the basis of which respondent
was held guilty of charges levelled against him, arrived at a
conclusion for his dismissal from service vide order dated
11.5.1976.                                                            B

     8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent was
constrained to prefer a departmental appeal under Regulation
40 of Staff Regulations but that too met the fate of dismissal
vide order dated 20.12.1976.
                                                                      c
    9. He then submitted further mercy appeal before the
Chairman of LIC but without any favourable result as the same
came to be dismissed on 12.10.1977.

      10. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by         D
 appellants herein, respondent as plaintiff was constrained to file
 a suit, as an indigent person before Additional District Judge
 No.2, Ajmer, for declaration that the departmental inquiry
proceedings culminating in order of dismissal from service, the
appellate order, and further order passed by the Chairman of          E
the appellant-Corporation as null and void. Consequently, he
be held entitled for reinstatement in service with all
consequential benefits. The learned trial Judge was pleased
to grant permission to respondent-plaintiff to contest the suit as
an indigent person.
                                                                      F
      11. Appellants herein as defendants, filed written
statement, inter alia, denying that no proper or sufficient
opportunity was afforded to the respondent. They further
contended that despite grant of sufficient opportunity,
respondent took undue adjournments on various earlier dates           G
or had remained absent, and thereafter deliberately remained
absent from the inquiry on 5.1.1976, thereby compelling the
Inquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte against him. Thus, even after
grant of several opportunities, he cannot legitimately contend
that inquiry was hit by the principles of natural justice.            H
    444      St,JPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A        12. Thus, in general, they have denied averments of the
    plaint in toto and submitted that the suit being mis-conceived
    deserves to be dismissed with costs.

         13. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, trial
    court was pleased to frame six issues. The main and pertinent
8
    issue was with regard to the fact whether action of the appellants
    resulting in respondent's dismissal from service, rejection of
    appeal and further representation, was in violation of the
    principles of natural justice, if so, then to what reliefs respondent
    was entitled to.
c
       14. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention
  here ~hat neither copy of Inquiry Report was made available to
  respondent nor it was disclosed in the show cause notice as
  to on what premise finding of guilt was recorded by Inquiry
D Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority while order of dismissal
  came to be passed against him.

       15. To prove his averments in the suit, respondent-plaintiff
  tendered himself in the witness box and proved his case as also
E documents filed in support thereof. Surprisingly enough,
  appellants herein did not lead any oral evidence, yet some of
  the documents filed by appellants were exhibited, probably
  under misconception of law that they were not disputed in Court
  by respondent. It is also necessary to mention here that
  appellants had also not served any notice of admission or
F denial of documents on the respondent during trial as
  contemplated under Order XI I Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
  Procedure (for short,'CPC').

        16. After appreciating the evidence available on record,
G trial court was pleased to decide the issues in favour of the
   respondent-pla4ntiff, holding therein that there was complete
   violation of principles of natural j~tice inasmuch as no
   reasonable, proper and sufficient opportunity was ~fforded to
   him to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. Similarly, the
H ·appellate order was passed in a mechanical manner as also
 L.l.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM PAL SINGH BISEN 445
                 [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
the order on representation of the respondent by Chairman. In       A
the result, the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of
respondent, quashing and setting aside order of dismissal from
service with further direction to reinstate him alongwith all
consequential benefits including payment of salary for the
intervening period.                                                 8

      17. Against this judgment and decree pronounced by trial
 court, appellants were constrained to file regular first appeal
 before learned single judge of the High Court which also came
 to be dismissed by him on 28.5.1993. Not being satisfied with      C
 the same, appellants carried Special Appeal before the Division
 Bench of the said High Court which also came to be dismissed
 on 30.9.2005. Hence, this appeal after grant of leave, by the
 defendants, having lost from all the three courts.

    18. We have accordingly heard Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Mr. K.         D
Ramamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. Indra
Sawhney·, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Chandan
Ramamurthi, learned counsel for respondent and have critically
examined the records.
                                                                    E
       19. It is pertinent to mention here that even though oral
 evidence lead by respondent plaintiff is not on record, but on
 certified copy thereof, being supplied to us by learned counsel
 for appellants, we have categorically gone through the same. It
·may be mentioned herein that in the same, there was not even
 a whisper of suggestion made to the plaintiff that he had
                                                                    F
 appeared in the office on 5.1.1976 to collect his suspension
 allowance yet on being informed by the inquiry officer, that his
 inquiry too was fixed for the said date, therefore, he should
 come to attend it, on which respondent had informed the Inquiry
 Officer that he would appear, after some time along with his       G
 witnesses. In other words, even the defence that has been
 pleaded and set up by the appellants in their written statement
 was not put forth to the respondent, while he was in the witness
box.
                                                                    H
    446      SUPREME COURT REPORTS.                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A      20. Thus, the question that arises for consideration is
  whether in absence of any oral evidence having been tendered
  by the appellants, and especially in absence of putting their own
  defence to the respondent during his cross examination in the
  Court, what is the effect of documents filed by appellants and
B marked as Exhibits.

        21. Despite our persistent requests made to the learned
   counsel appearing for the appellants they have not been able
   to show compliance of Order XII Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC,
C meaning thereby that there has not been any compliance
 ·thereof.

        22. Order XII, Rules 1 and 2 appearing in the Code of Civil
    Procedure reads as thus:

D                              "ORDER XII

                              ADMISSIONS

          1. Notice of admission of case. - Any party to a suit may
          give notice, by his pleading, or othewise in writing, that he
E         admits the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any
          other party.

          2. Notice to admit documents. - Either party may call upon
          the other party to admit, within seven days from the date
          of service of the notice any document, saving all just
F
          exceptions; and in case of refusal or neglect to admit, after
          such notice, the costs of proving any such document shall
          be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever
          the result of the suit m_ay be, unless the Court otherwise
          directs; and no costs of proving any document shall be
G         allowed unless such notice is given, except where the
          omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the Court,
          a saving of expense."

      23. It is also necessary to mention here that Rule 2A o(
H Order XII of the CPC deals with the situation where notice of
L.l.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM PAL SINGH BISEN 447
                [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
admission as contemplated in Order XII Rule 2 of the CPC has          A.
been served but is not denied then the same shall be deemed
to have been admitted. Similarly, Rule 3A of the aforesaid
Order grants power to the Court to admit any document in
evidence, even if no notice has been served. The aforesaid
provisions of law have been brought in the Code vide                  8
Amendment by Act No. 104 of 1976, w.e.f. 1.2.1977.

    24. Records do not reveal that any such procedure 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 to the          C
appellants, even if it is assumed that said documents have been
admitted by respondent and were then exhibited and marked.

     25. No doubt, it is true that failure to prove the defence
does not amount to an admission, nor does it reverse or               o
discharge the burden of proof of the plaintiff but still the duty
cast on the defendants has to be discharged by adducing oral
evidence, which the appellants have miserably failed to· do.
Appellants, even though a defaulting party, committed breach
and failed to carry out a legislative imposition, then had still to   E
convince this Court as to what was the just cause for doing the
same. Thus looking to the matter from any angle, it is fully
established that appellants had miserably failed to prove and
establish their defence in the case.

     26. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of F
document in evidence does not amount to _its proof. In other
words, mere marking of "Xhibit on a document does not
 dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in
 accordance with law. As has been mentioned herein above,
despite perusal of the record, we have not been able to come G
to know as to under what circumstances respondent plaintiff had
admitted those documents. Even otherwise, his admission of
those documents cannot carry the case of the appellants any.
further and much to the prejudice of the respondent.
                                                                      H
    448      SUPREME! COURT REPORTS                [2010) 3 S.C.R.


A        27. It was the duty of the appellants to have proved
    documents Exh. A-1 to Exh. A-10 in accordance with law. Filing
    of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the
    domestic enquiry would not partake the character of admissible
    evidence in a court of law. That documentary evidence was also
8   required to,be proved by the appellants in accordance with the
    provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do. ·

       28. It is also worthwhile to mention here that one of the
  complainant Rattan Lal who was examined as witness during
  the departmental Inquiry was not cross-examined by respondent
C as he was not afforded proper opp9rtunity in this regard.

       29. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously
  submitted before us that on 5.1.1976, respondent delibera.tely,
  intentionally and with oblique motives remained absent from the
D Departmental Inquiry proceedings as on the same very day he
  had come to the office to collect his dues, was then informed
  about the proceedings fixed for the same day but he still
  remained absent. The said order sheet is neither signed by the
  respondent nor was this defence put up to him when he was in
E the witness box in cross-examination.

          30. From the narration of. aforesaid facts and law, we are
    of the considered opinion that the courts have committed no
    error in coming to the conclusion that respondent was denied
    opportunity of hearing, that being so, whole proceedings stand
F   vitiated by non-adherence to the principles of natural justice.

        31. Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that
  contents of documents are required to be proved either by
  primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of
G documents may amount to admission of contents but not its
  truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as
  required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the
  Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely.
  filing in a court.
H
L.l.C. OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAM PAL SINGH BISEN 449
                [DEEPAK VERMA, J.]
      32. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. P.S. Patwalia        A
in his usual, polite yet firm vehemence contended that looking
to the serious allegations levelled against him, the order of the
Trial Court directing reinstatement with full back wages, which
stood confirmed by Appellate Courts, would amount to
rewarding a dishonest officer. But looking to the manner in           B
which the case was conducted in the Trial Court, nothing can
be done to grant any relief to the appellants. Respondent has
been able to successfully prove that there was denial of
opportunity to him in the Departmental Enquiry. In this view of
the matter, all subsequent actions taken thereto, would               c
automatically fail.
  \

     33. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that
the courts below committed no error in decreeing the suit of
the respondent.
                                                                      D
     34. It may further be noted that respondent has now retired
in the year 2000, after having attained age of superannuation.
Thus, the question of his re-instatement does not arise. It could
only be a case Of some monetary benefit to him. In view of his
superannuation, it will neither be fit nor proper to direct a fresh   E
inquiry to be conducted against him.

      35. Thus, the appeal being devoid of any merit and
substance is 'dismissed. Appellants to bear the cost of the
litigation throughout.                   ·
                                                                      F
       36. Counsel's fee Rs.10,000/-.

D.G.                                          Appeal d~smissed.