Non-appointment of Presenting Officer in Departmental Enquiry does not Vitiate Proceedings Absent Evidence of Bias

The appellant, an Ex-Constable in the CRPF, was dismissed from service on 17.11.1997 following a departmental enquiry.

The allegations included consuming liquor, misbehaving with a superior officer (SI/GD Jagdish Singh) at his family quarters on 31.05.1997, unauthorized absence from night duty on 01.06.1997, and assaulting several officers who found him drinking in the barracks.

The appellant’s departmental appeal and revision petition were dismissed in 1998.

He challenged the dismissal in a Writ Petition (SWP No. 349/2000), which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 31.01.2014.

The appellant then filed this intra-court appeal (LPA) primarily on the grounds that the Enquiry Officer acted as the Prosecutor because no Presenting Officer was appointed, and that a joint enquiry with a co-accused was mandatory.

1. Whether the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer’s conduct during the proceedings vitiated the departmental enquiry.

2. Whether the failure to conduct a joint enquiry under Rule 27(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, renders the proceedings illegal.

3. Whether the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

The court primarily relied on the principles set by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018), which established that the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not automatically vitiate an enquiry unless the Enquiry Officer acts as a prosecutor.

Rule 27(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, regarding common proceedings for members of the force involved in the same case.

The court also referenced Gautam Ray v. Union of India (2025) to affirm that lack of a Presenting Officer does not result in ipso facto prejudice.

The court found that the absence of a Presenting Officer did not prejudice the appellant because the record showed the Enquiry Officer remained impartial and did not lead the examination-in-chief or act as a prosecutor.

The appellant was granted and did exercise his right to cross-examine five prosecution witnesses.

Regarding Rule 27(d), the court clarified that the provision is "directory," granting the disciplinary authority discretion rather than conferring a "vested right" for a joint enquiry.

The court noted that the charges against the appellant (assault and unauthorized absence) were significantly more serious and distinct from those against his colleague, justifying separate proceedings.

The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s judgment and dismissed the appeal, while allowing the application for restoration (CM No. 8047/2025).