Presenting Officer not mandatory, but an Inquiry Officer acting as prosecutor vitiates disciplinary proceedings for bias and unfairness.

Under the CRPF Rules, 1955, the absence of a Presenting Officer does not by itself vitiate a departmental inquiry because the rules do not make such appointment mandatory. However, where the Inquiry Officer abandons the role of impartial adjudicator and assumes the function of prosecutor by leading prosecution evidence, the inquiry becomes unfair and is vitiated for breach of natural justice. The defect is treated as prejudicial because bias is inherent once neutrality is lost. Mere non-appointment is therefore insufficient, but inquiry proceedings conducted in a biased manner can justify setting aside the disciplinary action and permitting fresh proceedings from the stage directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer in a departmental inquiry under the CRPF Rules, 1955 by itself vitiates the inquiry; (ii) Whether the inquiry stood vitiated because the Inquiry Officer assumed the role of prosecutor, thereby offending the principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a Presenting Officer in a departmental inquiry under the CRPF Rules, 1955 by itself vitiates the inquiry.

Analysis: Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 prescribes the procedure for departmental inquiry but does not require appointment of a Presenting Officer. The statutory scheme therefore does not make such appointment mandatory in every case. Non-appointment, by itself, is not enough to invalidate the proceedings unless the manner in which the inquiry was conducted shows unfairness or prejudice.

Conclusion: The mere absence of a Presenting Officer does not, by itself, vitiate the inquiry.

Issue (ii): Whether the inquiry stood vitiated because the Inquiry Officer assumed the role of prosecutor, thereby offending the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: A disciplinary inquiry is quasi-judicial in nature and must be conducted by an impartial adjudicator. Although the inquiry rules did not require a Presenting Officer, the record showed that the Inquiry Officer himself led the examination of prosecution witnesses and acted in a manner consistent with the role of a prosecutor. Once the Inquiry Officer ceases to be a neutral adjudicator and appears to support the disciplinary case, the inquiry is affected by bias and the requirement of fair procedure is breached. In such a situation, prejudice is inherent in the defect.

Conclusion: The inquiry was vitiated because the Inquiry Officer acted as prosecutor and the principles of natural justice were breached.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal and removal orders could not be interfered with on the ground of mere absence of a Presenting Officer, but the findings of bias and unfairness justified setting aside the disciplinary actions, leaving liberty to proceed afresh from the stage directed by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer is not fatal unless the conduct of the Inquiry Officer shows that he abandoned the role of impartial adjudicator and assumed the role of prosecutor, in which event the inquiry is vitiated for breach of natural justice.

---