service matter

The case file is required to be perused as you have posted very limited facts.

no material witness is produced in department enquiry. then also enquiry officer gave ruling that no need of witness only documents are sufficient to prove charges and gave charges are proved

As per your post, you might have argued that the witness is not material, taking into consideration the EO has specifically stated that the charges are proved on documentary evidence.  When there is documentary evidence, it is not clear as to your stand.  The only alternative for you is to file WRIT and members can not state as to whether it will be sent back or not.  If there is enough documentary evidence, in speaking orders, HC may decide on facts before them through documentary evidence.

but date of document and date of document in charge sheet is different. they are taking contention that it's a typographical error. for example document date is 12-02-2016 but in charge sheet thay have mentioned date as 12-06-2106.this is main evidence whether this contention is pernissible

1)This is your specific query:  Does the writ court remind back it to the department again or quash the punishment and reinstate without re inquiry

2)Your ground is this; .  no material witness is produced in department enquiry. then  also enquiry officer gave ruling that no need of witness only documents are sufficient to prove charges and gave charges are proved
3)This is your argument against such Documentary evidence of Management: They are taking contention that it's a typographical error. for example document date is 12-02-2016 but in charge sheet thay have mentioned date as 12-06-2106.this is main evidence whether this contention is pernissible

Whether the document is genuine and contents are admitted by you and that document was served on you is the final question that determines your chances.

For a common man, the ground for an appeal that management mentioned a wrong date of a document in the charge sheet and explained by them as a typographical error and accepted by EO and you were terminated depending on such documentary evidence and your argument now is that 1.Witness is not material 2.Document  (exhibit) basing on which termination was done is having a wrong date (but contents and exhibit are genuine)---Appears to be weak grounds.  Members can not assume/presume the probable action of HC Judge if a writ is filed as to whether 

HC reminds back it to the department again or quash the punishment and reinstate without re inquiry - as facts depend on such other pieces of evidence and EO's report.

If you have confidence that the employee is innocent and the charges /EO are bad in law and excess punishment was given, going for the writ is the only alternate.and your advocate may guide you further by structuring the writ diluting on other issues and may pray for a lesser punishment on other merits.

 

Please post facts, in simple words, if you have any real issue. Avoid assumptions, presumptions and subjective opinions.

while framing charges the disciplinary authority gives basis of charge.U have to take that basis of charge document and u shoul submit ur written statement of defence.If they have not furnished the basis of charge the total proceeding will become void.Now file an appeal before the appellate authority stating that disciplinary authority has not furnished the basis of charge so entire disc.proceedings are void as per rule in vogue.

Mr.JankiMohan Rao:

The author's posting is confused and disjointed. Your suggestions complementing to that confusion. There is nothing like 'basis for charge', absence of which would render the proceedings void. There is only one situation which would render the disciplinary proceedings  void- lack of jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings, issue of charge-memo and consideration of statement of defence whether to drop or continue the proceedings as laid down in Union of India vs. B.V.Gopinath. 

Any meaningful suggestion is possible only if the author posts the material which, it appears, he is unwilling.