Non-appointment of a presenting officer does not vitiate an inquiry absent demonstrated prejudice.

The applicant, a Railway Technician, was dismissed from service on 22 August 2012 after a departmental inquiry found proved charges concerning pamphlets he had circulated, including criticism of the ICF administration and allegedly abusive references to officers

The dismissal was upheld on appeal on 13 September 2017 and in revision on 2 November 2018

The applicant challenged those orders before the Tribunal, alleging, among other things, procedural unfairness and prejudice because no Presenting Officer had been appointed

The Tribunal identified the effect of that non-appointment as the principal issue for determination

1. Whether the failure to appoint a Presenting Officer, by itself, vitiated the departmental inquiry

2. Whether the inquiry or resulting dismissal warranted judicial interference on the grounds of procedural unfairness, breach of natural justice, or other legally recognised infirmity

Rule 9(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 permits—but does not require—the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer

Under Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, non-appointment alone does not invalidate an inquiry; however, an Inquiry Officer must remain impartial and must not assume the role of prosecutor, as that may violate natural justice

Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited: a Tribunal does not reweigh evidence or act as an appellate authority, but may intervene for a legally recognised defect such as breach of natural justice, non-compliance with statutory rules, or findings unsupported by evidence or otherwise legally infirm

The Tribunal also relied on State of U.P. v. Raj Kishore Yadav and Union of India v. Upendra Singh concerning the limited scope of review

The Tribunal found no material showing that, in the absence of a Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor, displayed bias, or conducted the inquiry in a partisan manner

It also noted that the applicant had an opportunity to examine documents and cross-examine witnesses

Applying Rule 9(c) and Ram Lakhan Sharma, the Tribunal held that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer did not, without demonstrated prejudice or prosecutorial conduct by the Inquiry Officer, invalidate the proceedings

Given the limited scope of judicial review, it found no basis to interfere with the disciplinary decision

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs