Judgment:
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 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 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, what- ever the result of the suit may be, unless the Court otherwise directs; and no costs of proving any document shall be 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 of Order XII of the CPC deals with the situation where notice of admission as contemplated in Order XII Rule 2 of the CPC has 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 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 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 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 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 document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit 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 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.
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 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 as he was not afforded proper opportunity in this regard.
29. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously submitted before us that on 5.1.1976, respondent deliberately, intentionally and with oblique motives remained absent from the 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 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 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 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.
32. Learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. P.S. Patwalia 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 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 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.
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 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.
36. Counsel's fee Rs. 10,000/-.