Inquiry Vitiated by Inquiry Officer Acting as Presenting Officer and Prosecutor in Violation of Natural Justice.

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (M) initially appointed in 1983, was issued a chargesheet on 08.03.2011 alleging financial irregularities.

Following a disciplinary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (IO) proposed dismissal, and the Disciplinary Authority subsequently removed the petitioner from service via order dated 05.11.2011.

The petitioner’s departmental appeal was rejected on 16.07.2012.

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds that the inquiry was vitiated because no Presenting Officer was appointed, and the IO acted as a prosecutor by examining management witnesses and cross-examining defense witnesses.

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated by the Inquiry Officer acting as a prosecutor in the absence of a Presenting Officer, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits despite having reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the litigation.

The court applied the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard and an unbiased adjudicator.

It relied on *State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha* (2010) 2 SCC 772, establishing that an inquiry officer must be an independent adjudicator and not a representative of the department.

It further applied *Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma* (2018) 7 SCC 670, which held that while the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not inherently vitiate an inquiry, the inquiry becomes illegal if the IO conducts the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses or cross-examines defense witnesses to establish the employer's case.

The Court examined the inquiry records (Annexure P-5) and found that no Presenting Officer had been appointed by the department.

It observed that the IO departed from his role as a neutral fact-finder by actively examining and re-examining prosecution witnesses and cross-examining defense witnesses in detail.

Applying the "seven facets of natural justice" from *Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui* (as cited in *Ram Lakhan Sharma*), the Court reasoned that the IO’s conduct created a presumption of bias, effectively turning the judge into a prosecutor.

Consequently, the Court determined that the inquiry proceedings were fundamentally flawed and stood vitiated due to the breach of the requirement for an impartial adjudicator.

The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 05.11.2011 and 16.07.2012 were set aside.

Since the petitioner had already crossed the age of superannuation, the Court directed the respondents to grant all consequential benefits as if he had been reinstated, along with 50% of back wages, to be paid within 90 days.