Inquiry Officer cannot act as prosecutor in a departmental inquiry; impartiality and natural justice are essential.

A departmental inquiry is not invalid merely because no Presenting Officer is appointed, since Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 is enabling rather than mandatory. However, the Inquiry Officer cannot assume the role of prosecutor: if he conducts the examination-in-chief of departmental witnesses, leads the prosecution case, or cross-examines defence witnesses to prove the charge, he loses impartiality and the inquiry is tainted by bias and breach of natural justice. The inquiry was therefore vitiated on the manner of conduct, while the absence of a Presenting Officer alone was not fatal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the domestic inquiry was vitiated because the Inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer by conducting the examination-in-chief of departmental witnesses and cross-examining the defence witnesses, and whether non-appointment of a Presenting Officer was by itself fatal to the inquiry.

Analysis: Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 is only an enabling provision and does not require appointment of a Presenting Officer in every case. However, the rule does not permit the Inquiry Officer to assume the role of prosecutor. A distinction was drawn between permissible questioning by an Inquiry Officer to clarify evidence or discover the truth and impermissible conduct where the Inquiry Officer leads departmental witnesses through the prosecution case, puts suggestive questions, or cross-examines defence witnesses to establish the charge. In such a situation, the Inquiry Officer ceases to remain an impartial adjudicator and the inquiry is tainted by bias and breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The inquiry was rightly held to be vitiated because the Inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer was not, by itself, fatal, but the manner in which the inquiry was conducted rendered it invalid. The challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A Presenting Officer need not be appointed in every departmental inquiry, but the Inquiry Officer cannot perform the role of prosecutor; if he conducts the prosecution case or cross-examines defence witnesses to prove the charge, the inquiry is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

---