2015 (6) TMI 476 - HC - Indian Laws

Dismissal of employee after a domestic enquiry was held by the management - Validity of domestic enquiry - Held that - The object of holding an enquiry proceeding is to give the delinquent employee a reasonable opportunity to prove his answers and to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A domestic enquiry must be in conformity with the rules of natural justice. The rules of natural justice which are at present confined to the procedural side of law are a body of uncodified moral principles intended to supplement the existing law and not supplant it. The details of the procedure that are to be followed by the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry are not prescribed in any rules framed under any statute. Some of the Standing Orders have prescribed certain guidelines on the procedure to be followed in a domestic enquiry - Enquiry Officer cannot act as a witness for the management or for that matter for the delinquent employee since a person cannot be a judge in his own cause. However, even an Enquiry Officer is at liberty to put questions to the witnesses and that per se would not vitiate the proceedings. - The Enquiry Officer may evolve his own procedure in the absence of any guidelines but the procedure must be fair, free from arbitrariness and in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Mere participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in a domestic enquiry is not contrary to the principle of natural justice and does not render an enquiry or the entire proceedings inoperative or without jurisdiction in the absence of proof of prejudice to the concern employee. - Decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of domestic enquiry with the Presenting Officer acting as a witness.
2. Principles of natural justice.
3. Prejudice to the employee.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Domestic Enquiry with the Presenting Officer Acting as a Witness:
The primary issue revolves around whether the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness in a domestic enquiry invalidates the proceedings. The Tribunal initially held that such participation rendered the enquiry and the entire proceeding inoperative and without jurisdiction, relying on precedents like Sarajit Coomer Mazumder vs. Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Mohd. Miya vs. State of West Bengal. The Division Bench recognized conflicting judgments from other cases, such as Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd. vs. Surendra Pratap Narayan Singh, which found the Presenting Officer's dual role as abnormal and unknown in law, and Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Central Labour Court, which permitted such participation, emphasizing the opportunity for cross-examination.

2. Principles of Natural Justice:
The judgment extensively discussed the principles of natural justice, particularly the maxim "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" (no man shall be a judge in his own cause). The court examined various precedents, including Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of U.P and Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee, which emphasized the impartiality required in enquiry proceedings. However, the court differentiated these cases, noting that the Enquiry Officer must be impartial, whereas the Presenting Officer, representing the management, is not held to the same standard of impartiality.

3. Prejudice to the Employee:
The court concluded that the mere participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness does not automatically violate natural justice principles unless it results in actual prejudice to the employee. The judgment emphasized that the burden of proving such prejudice lies with the employee. The court noted that the objective of an enquiry is to provide the employee a fair opportunity to defend against the charges, and any procedural deviations must be shown to have caused real, substantial prejudice affecting the employee's legal rights.

Conclusion:
The court answered the referred question in the negative, stating that the participation of the Presenting Officer as a witness does not inherently violate natural justice principles or invalidate the enquiry proceedings, provided there is no proof of prejudice to the employee. The reference was disposed of, and the case was remanded to the appropriate court for disposal in light of this opinion.