Departmental enquiry procedure and natural justice: Rule 16 upheld, with no invalid bias from the enquiry officer's multiple roles.

Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 was upheld as a valid departmental procedure because it required notice of charges, supply of the summary of allegations and witness material, opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and a chance to lead defence evidence before major punishment. The fact that the enquiry officer performed multiple functions did not, by itself, establish impermissible bias or violate natural justice, since the statute authorised the process and the procedure remained fair. The challenge to the punishment and departmental proceedings therefore failed, and the dismissal of the original application was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, which empowers the enquiry officer to summarize the misconduct, record evidence, and proceed through the stages of departmental enquiry, is unconstitutional for violating principles of natural justice on the ground of bias, and whether the punishment and departmental proceedings were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Article 311(2) requires that a delinquent government servant be informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The procedure under Rule 16 was found to be structured to ensure notice, supply of the summary of allegations, list of witnesses and documents, opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, opportunity to produce defence evidence, and a further opportunity before the disciplinary authority before major punishment is imposed. The circumstance that the enquiry officer performs multiple functions in the departmental process does not, by itself, establish impermissible bias. The doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua is not absolute in the context of statutory departmental adjudication, and principles of natural justice yield where the statute itself authorises the procedure and the procedure remains fair. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the enquiry after initial appearance and had been afforded repeated opportunities.

Conclusion: Rule 16 was upheld as valid and the challenge based on bias and denial of natural justice failed. The punishment and the dismissal of the original application were sustained.

---