Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the setting aside of CRPF dismissal and removal orders where inquiry officers had acted as prosecutors as well as adjudicators. Rule 27(c) did not mandate a Presenting Officer, and the absence of one alone would not invalidate an inquiry. The defect arose from the officers’ actual conduct in presenting the departmental case. Fresh inquiries remained permissible from the stage directed by the High Court; arrears were left to the authorities.
Issues
- Whether absence of a Presenting Officer necessarily invalidated an inquiry under the CRPF Rules.
- Whether an inquiry officer’s conduct in presenting the prosecution case violated impartiality despite the Rules’ silence.
Provisions considered
- Rule 27(c), Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955The prescribed inquiry procedure did not require appointment of a Presenting Officer in every case. It nevertheless had to operate consistently with natural justice and an independent adjudicator. (¶¶ 21, 22, 27, 33)
Held
- Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not by itself vitiate a disciplinary inquiry. Whether the inquiry officer also assumed the prosecutorial role must be determined from how evidence was introduced and recorded in the particular proceedings. (¶¶ 27, 32, 33, 35)
- An inquiry officer may ask questions to ascertain truth or clarify evidence, with an opportunity for the employee to cross-examine on the clarifications. Conducting the prosecution’s examination-in-chief, leading witnesses through its case or questioning to establish that case can instead amount to acting as prosecutor and vitiate impartiality. (¶¶ 28, 31, 32, 33)
- Natural justice supplements statutory rules where not expressly excluded. Silence about a procedural safeguard does not authorise a biased or unfair inquiry. (¶¶ 25, 33, 34)
- The High Court examined the complete inquiry proceedings and found that the inquiry officer led the prosecution witnesses and acted as both prosecutor and judge. The loss of independent adjudicative capacity attracted the bias principle and justified setting aside the disciplinary orders on these facts. (¶¶ 18, 35, 36)
Result
All appeals dismissed. Authorities remained free to conduct fresh inquiries from the stage specified by the High Court and to decide arrear pay and allowances.