Enquiry Officer Acting as Presenting Officer and Failure to Direct Joint Enquiry Vitiates Disciplinary Proceedings.

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was subjected to a departmental inquiry following allegations of demanding gratification for the release of an accused who later committed suicide in custody, and for being found inebriated at the Police Station.

A joint inquiry was conducted alongside two other employees (a Head Constable and a Constable) resulting in a composite order dated 27-07-2009, which imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner while awarding lesser penalties to the others.

The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that no formal order for a joint inquiry was passed under Rule 18 and that the Enquiry Officer illegally acted as the Presenting Officer.

Despite the State’s contention that the absence of a formal Rule 18 order was a mere technicality, the petitioner was also acquitted in the related criminal case under Section 306 IPC on 21-01-2011.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of a formal order for a joint inquiry under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966.

2. Whether the Enquiry Officer could legally assume the role of the Presenting Officer under Rule 15 of the Rules of 1966.

3. Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the disciplinary orders based on violations of statutory procedure.

Rules 15 and 18 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, pulse the procedure for inquiries and the necessity of a specific order for joint proceedings.

The court further relied on the principles from Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015), which established that High Courts can interfere in disciplinary matters under Article 226/227 if the inquiry violates prescribed procedures or principles of natural justice.

Additionally, the court noted Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Prasad Singh (2001) regarding consistency in punishments during joint inquiries.

The court reasoned that the State failed to dispute the non-existence of a formal order under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1966, which is a statutory prerequisite for conducting a joint inquiry against multiple delinquents.

The court found a fatal procedural flaw in that the Enquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer—examining departmental witnesses—thereby violating Rule 15 and the principles of impartiality.

Applying the standard set in P. Gunasekaran, the court determined that judicial intervention was warranted because the inquiry was not held according to the legally prescribed procedure.

The court also observed that since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial and the disciplinary procedure was fundamentally flawed, the resulting orders and the recovery of money based on Human Rights Commission directives were unsustainable.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the orders dated 22-07-2009 and 20-11-2009 were quashed. The court directed that since the petitioner had reached superannuation, he be treated as having remained in service until retirement and awarded all consequential benefits, including 50% back-wages and the refund of any withheld amounts, to be settled within 90 days.