Enquiry Officer acting as prosecutor in departmental proceedings violates natural justice and vitiates the enquiry.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed an appeal against a Single Judge’s order dated March 6, 2024, which had vitiated a departmental enquiry against the respondent

The appeal was filed with a significant delay of 543 days

The appellants argued that because the enquiry took place before a 2010 amendment to the Police Regulations, the absence of a separate Presenting Officer was lawful

However, the Writ Court previously found that the Enquiry Officer had overstepped their mandate by acting as a prosecutor, including conducting exhaustive cross-examinations of the respondent

1. Whether the delay of 543 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

2. Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer's participation as a prosecutor vitiated the disciplinary proceedings under the principles of natural justice

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the requirement of "sufficient cause" for condoning delays

Substantively, it relied on the principles of natural justice, specifically Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause)

The court heavily cited Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670, which establishes that while the absence of a Presenting Officer does not automatically invalidate an enquiry, the proceedings are vitiated if the Enquiry Officer assumes the role of a prosecutor

It further referenced Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (2004) regarding the seven facets of an impartial adjudicator

The court first determined that the appellants failed to provide any "sufficient cause" to justify the 543-day delay, characterizing the application as "hopelessly worded"

The court reasoned that rules of natural justice supplement statutory law; even if a statute does not mandate a Presenting Officer, an Enquiry Officer must remain an independent adjudicator

By examining the prosecution and defense witnesses and cross-examining the respondent, the Enquiry Officer breached the requirement of impartiality

The court noted that the State failed to produce deposition sheets to rebut the finding that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor, leading the court to draw an adverse inference against the State

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as barred by time

The Court further clarified that the Single Judge’s findings were correct in law because the Enquiry Officer's dual role as prosecutor and judge fundamentally violated the principles of natural justice, regardless of the regulatory framework existing at the time of the enquiry