### Domestic inquiry is vitiated if the Inquiry Officer assumes the role of a prosecutor by cross-examining witnesses.

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in 1985

Following a joint charge-sheet and subsequent inquiry regarding allegations of intoxication while on duty and and failure to prevent a physical altercation involving the snatching of rifles

the Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 20.12.2012 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement

The petitioner challenged this on several grounds: that the Enquiry Officer acted as the prosecutor by cross-examining witnesses; that the punishment was discriminatory compared to higher-ranking officers; and that both the punishment and appellate orders were non-speaking

During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner was substituted by his legal heir

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to the Enquiry Officer assuming the role of the prosecutor by cross-examining the delinquent employee

2. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities were legally sustainable as "speaking orders"

the principles of natural justice and Rule 14(5)(c) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966

Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018), which establishes that an Enquiry Officer must be an impartial adjudicator and cannot act as a prosecutor

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), which mandates that quasi-judicial and administrative orders affecting rights must contain clear, reasoned justifications to satisfy the "lifeblood of judicial decision-making"

Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (2004) regarding the presumption of bias when an Enquiry Officer conducts examination-in-chief or cross-examination

The Court found that although a Presenting Officer was appointed, the Enquiry Officer stepped beyond his quasi-judicial role by actively cross-examining the petitioner and other witnesses

Under the settled law in Ram Lakhan Sharma, such conduct causes the adjudicator to lose the capacity of an independent arbiter, thereby vitiating the inquiry due to bias

the Court scrutinized the punishment order dated 20.12.2012 and the appellate order dated 14.03.2013, concluding that they were "non-speaking" and "unreasoned"

The authorities failed to address the petitioner's specific defenses or the procedural irregularities, rendering the orders arbitrary and in violation of the "doctrine of fairness" as established in State of Punjab v. Bandip Singh

The Court quashed the punishment order (20.12.2012), the appellate order (14.03.2013), and the mercy appeal rejection (12.07.2013)

The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner (notionally, as he had since retired) and provide all consequential benefits, including annual increments, arrears of pension, and revised PPO/GPO, within three months

Failure to comply within the stipulated period attracts interest at 6% per annum