Inquiry vitiated where Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor by cross-examining the delinquent employee without a Presenting Officer.

The petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police (M) at P.T.S. Tighara, Gwalior, was issued a charge-sheet on 26.03.2009 for alleged acts and omissions.

The disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer (IO) but failed to appoint a Presenting Officer (PO).

During the departmental inquiry, the IO recorded statements and cross-examined the petitioner.

Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed a punishment order on 22.01.2010, withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect.

Subsequent appeals and mercy petitions were rejected by the appellate authorities on 24.05.2010 and 17.02.2011.

1. Whether the departmental inquiry was vitiated due to the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer subsequently acting as a prosecutor by cross-examining the delinquent employee.

2. Whether the resulting punishment and appellate orders are sustainable in law.

Rule 14(5)(c) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, regarding the procedure for departmental inquiries.

An Inquiry Officer must be impartial and cannot act as a prosecutor; if the IO conducts examination-in-chief or cross-examination of witnesses to establish the prosecution's case in the absence of a PO, the inquiry is vitiated by bias.

An adjudicator cannot play the role of a prosecutor.

The Court observed that in the absence of a Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer overstepped his quasi-judicial role by elaborately cross-examining the petitioner.

Applying the principles from Ram Lakhan Sharma, the Court found that when an IO adopts the role of a prosecutor, the capacity of an independent adjudicator is lost, and bias is presumed.

The Court scrutinized the inquiry proceedings and determined that the IO’s conduct of leading questions and cross-examination directly violated the principles of natural justice.

Since the respondent/State could not dispute that the IO had indeed acted as a prosecutor, the Court held the entire disciplinary process fundamentally flawed.

The Writ Petition was allowed; the Court quashed the punishment order dated 22.01.2010 and the appellate orders dated 24.05.2010 and 17.02.2011.

The respondents were directed to extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner within three months.

Given that the petitioner retired in August 2024, the Court denied the respondents liberty to take any fresh action against him.