Departmental inquiry fairness: absence of a Presenting Officer is not fatal, but the Inquiry Officer cannot act as prosecutor.

Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer in a departmental inquiry does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings because Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 is enabling and discretionary. The Inquiry Officer may ask questions to clarify the record, but only so long as he remains an impartial adjudicator and the delinquent employee has a fair opportunity to meet the case. If the Inquiry Officer conducts examination-in-chief, advances the employer's case through leading questions, and cross-examines defence witnesses, he assumes the role of prosecutor and the inquiry is vitiated for bias and breach of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself, vitiated the departmental inquiry. (ii) Whether the inquiry stood vitiated because the Inquiry Officer himself performed the role of Presenting Officer and conducted the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

Issue (i): Whether non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself, vitiated the departmental inquiry.

Analysis: Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 was held to be enabling and discretionary. The mere absence of a Presenting Officer did not automatically invalidate the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer could ask questions to elicit the truth and seek clarifications, provided he did not assume the role of prosecutor and the delinquent employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the material brought against him.

Conclusion: Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself, did not vitiate the inquiry.

Issue (ii): Whether the inquiry stood vitiated because the Inquiry Officer himself performed the role of Presenting Officer and conducted the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis: A domestic inquiry must be conducted by an unbiased adjudicator. The Inquiry Officer occupies the position of a judge, while the Presenting Officer occupies the position of a prosecutor. Where the Inquiry Officer conducts the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, puts leading questions to support the charge, and cross-examines defence witnesses to establish the employer's case, he crosses the boundary of permissible clarification and becomes the prosecutor. That conduct gives rise to bias and offends the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The inquiry was vitiated because the Inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer and assumed the role of prosecutor.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the challenge was upheld in the sense that the Tribunal's finding of vitiation of the inquiry was sustained, while the proceeding could be recommenced from the appropriate stage.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer is not fatal, but an inquiry is invalid where the Inquiry Officer assumes the prosecutorial role by presenting the case and cross-examining witnesses instead of remaining an impartial adjudicator.

---