2004 (8) TMI 761 - HC - Indian Laws

Tribunal decision upheld, orders set aside, fresh inquiry ordered due to bias violation

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui

Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Versus Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Inquiry Officer acting as the Presenting Officer vitiated the inquiry.2. Whether the non-production of requested documents violated the principles of natural justice.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Inquiry Officer acting as the Presenting Officer vitiated the inquiry:The respondent, an employee of the Central Railway, was charged with fraud and misappropriation. During the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer also acted as the Presenting Officer, conducting examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses and cross-examining defense witnesses. The respondent challenged this dual role, arguing it violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Inquiry Officer acting as the Presenting Officer amounted to a 'Judge acting as a prosecutor,' which is inherently biased and violates natural justice.The Railway administration contended that according to Rule 9(9)(c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, and a Railway Board circular, the appointment of a Presenting Officer was discretionary. However, the court clarified that while the rule allows discretion in appointing a Presenting Officer, it does not permit an Inquiry Officer to act as the Presenting Officer. The court emphasized that one of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause, which includes the adjudicator not acting as the prosecutor.The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, which underscored that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. The court concluded that the Inquiry Officer's dual role created a presumption of bias, thus vitiating the inquiry. The court distinguished between an Inquiry Officer putting questions for clarification and acting as a prosecutor, noting that the latter would invalidate the inquiry.2. Whether the non-production of requested documents violated the principles of natural justice:The respondent also argued that the inquiry was flawed because the requested documents necessary to establish his defense were not produced or made available for inspection. These documents included the Voucher Entry Book and Cash Remittances for specific dates. The respondent claimed that these documents were crucial to proving his innocence and implicating others, but their non-production prevented him from effectively presenting his case.The Tribunal found merit in this argument, holding that the non-production of these documents further violated the principles of natural justice. The court did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary ground for setting aside the inquiry was the Inquiry Officer's dual role. However, the non-production of documents was noted as an additional factor contributing to the unfairness of the inquiry process.Conclusion:The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, which set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, and remitted the matter for a fresh inquiry from the stage of appointing a Presenting Officer. The court dismissed the Railway administration's petition, affirming that the inquiry was vitiated due to the violation of principles of natural justice.