Departmental inquiry is vitiated when Inquiring Officer assumes dual role of prosecutor and adjudicator.

The applicant, Nageshwar Ravidas, was appointed as a Safaiwala in 1975 and eventually promoted to Blacksmith Grade-I/Master Craftsman

In April 2017, he was served a Charge Memorandum under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, alleging he submitted a forged School Transfer Certificate to manipulate his date of birth as 25.09.1957 instead of 03.03.1951

Following an ex parte inquiry, the applicant was removed from service on 04.09.2017, just 24 days prior to his scheduled superannuation on 30.09.2017

The applicant’s appeal was rejected on 18.10.2017

During the pendency of the Original Application, the applicant deceased and was substituted by his wife

A critical procedural fact admitted by the respondents was that no Presenting Officer (PO) was appointed during the departmental inquiry

1. Whether the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer and the subsequent dual role played by the Inquiry Officer as both prosecutor and adjudicator vitiates the disciplinary proceedings

2. Whether the removal from service was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which provides for the appointment of a "Presenting Officer" to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority

It relied on the constitutional principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement for an impartial adjudicator.

The Tribunal further applied the legal precedents established by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Manju Sahay v. Union of India and Harendra Nath Prasad v. Union of India, which hold that an Inquiry Officer cannot play a dual role of prosecutor and judge, as such a procedure is inherently biased and legally impermissible

The Tribunal found that the disciplinary proceedings suffered from a fundamental procedural defect because the Disciplinary Authority failed to appoint a Presenting Officer

Consequently, the Inquiry Officer (IO) was forced to lead evidence and examine witnesses, effectively assuming the role of the prosecutor while remaining the adjudicator

The Tribunal reasoned that the IO must remain a neutral third party; when an IO acts as a PO, it breaches the requirement of impartiality and creates a "chance of bias"

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the inquiry was conducted ex parte despite the applicant’s claims of illness, and the Inquiry Report was not properly served, preventing the applicant from filing a representation against the findings

Referring to the Patna High Court’s ruling in Harendra Nath Prasad, the Tribunal held that this procedural lapse is not a mere irregularity but an illegality that goes to the root of the inquiry

The Tribunal quashed the removal order dated 04.09.2017 and the appellate order dated 18.10.2017

It directed that the deceased applicant be treated as having continued in service until his superannuation on 30.09.2017

The respondents were ordered to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, retiral benefits, and family pension, to the legal heir (the applicant's wife) within three months