Central Revenue Police Force Rules, 1955 – r.27 – Procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry – Non-appointment of Presenting Officer in the departmental inquiry – Effect of – On facts, the High Court set aside the dismissal/removal orders of respondents on the ground of non-appointment of Presenting Officer in the departmental inquiry resulting in violation of principle of natural justice; and that the Enquiry officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry – On appeal, held: Rule 27 does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry – When statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles of natural justice can be held violated is to be seen – Further, Inquiry Officer who has to be independent and not representative of the disciplinary authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceed to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, principle of bias comes into place – On facts, the High Court held that Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor by leading the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions, and Judge in the disciplinary enquiry – Having acted as prosecutor also, capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affected his independent role of adjudicator – Thus, the principle of bias was attracted and High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders – Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 – s.11(1) – Service Law. Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the Rule 27 sub rule (c) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 does not indicate that Rule contemplates appointment of Presenting Officer. Service conditions including punishment and appeal procedure of an employee are governed by statutory rules. The CRPF Act, 1949 has been enacted by the Parliament for the constitution and regulation of an armed Central Reserve Police Force. Section 18 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. The disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and Inquiry Officer is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially. The authority exercises quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner. [Paras
22 and 23][58-G-H; 59-A-B]
1.2 Rule 27 does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry. It is thus clear that statutory provision does not mandate appointment of Presenting Officer. When the statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles of natural justice can be held to be violated is the broad question which needs to be answered. The High Court found breach of principles of natural justice in Inquiry Officer acting as the prosecutor against the respondents. The Inquiry Officer who has to be independent and not representative of the disciplinary authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceed to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, the principle of bias comes into place. [Para 27][61D-E]
1.3 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. [Para 33][66-B-C]
1.4 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 instant case, the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor by himself leading the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions, and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. [Para 35][67-F-H]
1.5 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 would 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. [Para 36][38-A-B] Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala and others AIR 1969 SC 198 : 1969 SCR 317; A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others AIR 1970 SC 150 : [1970] 1 SCR 457; State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772 : [2010] 2 SCR 326; Bharath Electronics Ltd. v. K. Kasi ILR 1987 Karnataka 366; Workmen of Lambabari Tea Estate v. Lambabari Tea Estate 1966 (2) LLJ 315; Union of India and ors. v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui ILR (2004) MP 821; Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra (1998) 7 SCC 84 : [1998] 1 Suppl. SCR 22 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.