2018 (7) TMI 2268 - SC - Indian Laws

Misconduct by Constable - Allegation is that Appellant remained absent without proper permission of competent authority with consent of his Guard Commander from his duty on 23.10.1999 from 0900 hrs. to 0930 hrs - rape - it is also alleged that while functioning as constable (Guard) has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force in that he tried to do sexual intercourse with a woman with mutual consent by giving money which amounts to indiscipline/moral turpitude - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may. There is no requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in each and every case, whether statutory Rules enable the authorities to make an appointment or are silent. When the statutory Rules are silent with regard to the applicability of any facet of principles of natural justice the applicability of principles of natural justice which are not specifically excluded in the statutory scheme are not prohibited. When there is no express exclusion of particular principle of natural justice, the said principle shall be applicable in a given case to advance the cause of justice. The question which was debated before this Court was that since Regulation 7(2) does not contain any provision for giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer to represent before disciplinary authority who reverses the findings which were in favour of the delinquent employee, the Rules of natural justice are not applicable. This Court held that principle of natural justice has to be read in Regulation 7(2) even though Rule does not specifically require hearing of delinquent officer. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry - The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the Appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. All the appeals are dismissed subject to the liberty as granted by the High Court that it shall be open for the Appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High Court and it shall be open for the Appellant to decide on arrear pay and allowances of the Respondents.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the removal/dismissal orders of the Respondents.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries.
3. Non-appointment of Presenting Officer in disciplinary inquiries.
4. Role of the Inquiry Officer as both prosecutor and judge.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the removal/dismissal orders of the Respondents:
The Union of India challenged the Gauhati High Court's judgments that set aside the removal/dismissal orders of the Respondents and directed their reinstatement. The High Court found the disciplinary inquiries flawed due to the violation of natural justice principles, particularly noting the Inquiry Officer acted as both prosecutor and judge.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries:
The High Court concluded that the disciplinary inquiries violated the principles of natural justice because the Inquiry Officer led the examination in chief of the prosecution witnesses and acted as a prosecutor. This dual role compromised the fairness of the inquiry. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Inquiry Officer's actions breached the principle of bias, as he failed to maintain his role as an independent adjudicator.

3. Non-appointment of Presenting Officer in disciplinary inquiries:
The Supreme Court examined whether the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer vitiated the disciplinary inquiries. Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which governs disciplinary inquiries, does not mandate the appointment of a Presenting Officer. However, the Court emphasized that even if the rules do not require a Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer must not assume the role of a prosecutor, as this would violate natural justice principles.

4. Role of the Inquiry Officer as both prosecutor and judge:
The Court highlighted that the Inquiry Officer must act impartially and independently. By acting as both prosecutor and judge, the Inquiry Officer compromised his neutrality, leading to a biased inquiry. The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court's finding that the Inquiry Officer's actions violated natural justice principles, thereby invalidating the disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Union of India, affirming the High Court's judgments that set aside the dismissal orders due to the violation of natural justice principles. The Court granted the Union of India the liberty to conduct fresh inquiries from the stage of appointing a Presenting Officer, as directed by the High Court. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining impartiality and fairness in disciplinary inquiries, particularly by ensuring that Inquiry Officers do not assume prosecutorial roles.