Inquiry Officer acting as prosecutor by cross-examining delinquent employee vitiates departmental enquiry and natural justice.

The petitioner, a Head Constable, was charged with misconduct for allegedly releasing accused persons on bail without authorization and creating false records of the same

Following a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order on January 23, 2012, imposing a punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect

The petitioner's subsequent appeal and mercy petition were rejected by the Appellate and Revisional authorities via non-speaking orders

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, primarily contending that the Inquiry Officer (IO) acted as both prosecutor and judge by cross-examining the petitioner himself, thereby vitiating the inquiry

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to the Inquiry Officer acting as the prosecutor by conducting the cross-examination of the delinquent employee

2. Whether the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate authorities were legally sustainable despite being non-speaking and unreasoned

the principles of natural justice, specifically that "no man shall be a judge in his own cause," and the requirement that an adjudicator must be impartial and not act as a prosecutor

Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) and Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (2004), which establish that if an IO cross-examines a delinquent to establish the employer's case, bias is presumed and the inquiry is vitiated

Rule 14(5)(c) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966

Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), which mandates that quasi-judicial and administrative orders affecting rights must be "speaking orders" containing clear reasons

The Court observed that during the inquiry, the IO recorded the statements himself and personally subjected the petitioner to an elaborate cross-examination of 23 questions

By doing so, the IO abandoned the role of an independent adjudicator and assumed the role of a prosecutor, which the Court deemed a fatal procedural irregularity that violated the "open mind" requirement of a judge

the Court scrutinized the impugned punishment and appellate orders, finding them to be superficial and "non-speaking"

The Court reasoned that the authorities failed to objectively consider the petitioner's defense or record justifiable reasons, rendering the decisions arbitrary and capricious rather than "self-sustaining" as required by the law

the Court quashed the punishment order dated 23.01.2012, the appellate order dated 11.04.2012, and the mercy petition rejection. The petitioner was held entitled to all consequential benefits, including annual increments and arrears, to be paid within three months. As the petitioner had already retired, the Court explicitly denied the respondents liberty to initiate fresh action