2004 (8) TMI 746 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Vitiating Inquiry Officer's Role

Union of India and Ors Versus Mohd Nasseem Siddiqui

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the domestic inquiry was vitiated by the Inquiry Officer assuming the role of the Presenting ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the domestic inquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice.2. Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer vitiated the inquiry.3. Whether the Inquiry Officer acted improperly by assuming the role of Presenting Officer.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the domestic inquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice:The respondent argued that the domestic inquiry violated principles of natural justice on two grounds: the Inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer, and crucial documents requested by the respondent were not provided. The Tribunal held that the Inquiry Officer's dual role violated the principles of natural justice, as it amounted to a judge acting as a prosecutor. This principle is rooted in the fundamental rule that no man shall be a judge in his own cause, which includes the adjudicator not being the prosecutor and maintaining impartiality throughout the inquiry.2. Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer vitiated the inquiry:The Railway administration contended that the appointment of a Presenting Officer was discretionary under Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and not mandatory. The court clarified that while the rule allows discretion in appointing a Presenting Officer, it does not permit the Inquiry Officer to act as the Presenting Officer. The court emphasized that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not automatically vitiate the inquiry unless the Inquiry Officer assumes the role of the Presenting Officer, thereby compromising impartiality.3. Whether the Inquiry Officer acted improperly by assuming the role of Presenting Officer:The Inquiry Officer conducted regular examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses and cross-examined defense witnesses, which is beyond merely seeking clarifications. The court noted that such actions by the Inquiry Officer indicate bias and a lack of an open mind, as it places the Inquiry Officer in the position of a prosecutor. The court referenced several judgments, including Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee and Abdul Wajeed v. State of Karnataka, to underscore that an Inquiry Officer acting as a prosecutor vitiates the inquiry process.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no error in its order. The Tribunal correctly identified that the inquiry was vitiated due to the Inquiry Officer acting as the Presenting Officer, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal's order to resume the inquiry from the stage of appointing a Presenting Officer was deemed appropriate. Consequently, the petition by the Railway administration was dismissed.