An Enquiry Officer acting as prosecutor through leading questions vitiates disciplinary proceedings for bias.

The petitioner, a Police Constable (Radio/Telecommunication), was proceeded against departmentally for allegedly contracting a second marriage with Sunita Singh during the lifetime of his first wife, Neelam Singh, without prior departmental permission, in violation of Rule 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

After enquiry, the disciplinary authority initially imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect; in appeal, the penalty was enhanced to dismissal/removal from service by order dated 23 January 2004.

The petitioner challenged that order in W.P. No. 2075 of 2004, whereupon the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The appellate authority thereafter dismissed the appeal by order dated 28 December 2018, leading to the present writ petition.

No Presenting Officer was appointed during the enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer allegedly cross-examined material prosecution witnesses, including the petitioner and his second wife, through leading and suggestive questions.

The Court held that the 1966 Rules apply to disciplinary proceedings against subordinate police personnel by virtue of Regulation 213 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations, subject to the principle that the Police Regulations prevail in case of conflict and the 1966 Rules apply where the Police Regulations are silent.

Rule 14(5)(c) permits appointment of a Presenting Officer to present the Department’s case, but such appointment is not mandatory in every enquiry; non-appointment alone does not invalidate the proceedings.

However, the Enquiry Officer must remain an independent and impartial adjudicator and may ask questions only to clarify evidence or ascertain the truth. If he conducts examination-in-chief, cross-examines witnesses, or uses leading and suggestive questions to establish the Department’s case, he assumes the prosecutorial role and the enquiry is vitiated by bias and denial of natural justice.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Naseem Siddiqui and Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670.

The Court applied the 1966 Rules to the petitioner’s disciplinary proceeding because the Police Regulations did not exclude their operation and Regulation 213 incorporated the general service rules where applicable.

Although the absence of a Presenting Officer was not independently fatal, the Enquiry Officer had cross-examined the petitioner and Sunita Singh and put leading and suggestive questions designed to elicit evidence supporting the charge.

This conduct exceeded permissible clarification, caused the Enquiry Officer to act simultaneously as prosecutor and adjudicator, and compromised the impartiality required in a quasi-judicial disciplinary proceeding.

Since the finding of guilt relied upon evidence elicited in that manner, the enquiry violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.

The penalty order dated 23 January 2004 and the appellate order dated 28 December 2018 were quashed.

The petitioner was directed to be reinstated if he had not attained the age of superannuation, with all consequential benefits except back wages.

He was granted liberty to make a representation regarding back wages within six weeks, to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

The respondents were also permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage of evidence.