IMPORTANT POINT
Despite the rules not requiring appointment of presenting officer a presenting officer has to be appointed because Inquiry officer, being adjudicator, cannot act as presenting officer, the prosecutor.

Headnote:(a) Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 – Rule 27(c) – Not contemplating appointment of presenting officer. (Para 22)
       (b) Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – Quasi judicial proceeding – Inquiry Officer acting as an independent adjudicator – Obliged to act fairly, impartially in good faith and without bias – Natural justice. (Para 23)
       AIR 1969 SC 198; AIR 1970 SC 150; (2010) 2 SCC 772 – Relied upon
       (c) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Inquiry officer is an independent adjudicator – Presenting officer is a prosecutor – Inquiry officer cannot act as presenting officer – If he does so, he will lose is identity as independent adjudicator and therefore inquiry will be vitiated – Even if rules do not require appointment of presenting officer, it being a facet of natural justice, may be read into the rules. (Para 33, 35, 36)
       1966 (2) LLJ 315; (1998) 7 SCC 84 – Relied upon
       ILR 1987 Kar. 366; ILR (2004) MP 821 – Cited with approval
       Facts of the case:
       The respondent- Ram Lakhan Sharma on 23.10.1999 while he was posted as constable 11 Bn., CRPF at Agartala, Tripura he went out from Guard duty at 09.00 a.m. and returned back at 09.50 a.m. In the afternoon, an allegation was made by one lady Smt. Gita Paul making allegation of rape against the respondent and First Information Report was registered on 23.10.1999 at the Police Station under Section 376 IPC.
       On 23.10.1999 the appellant was placed under suspension.
       The Commandant, 11 Bn passed an order imposing penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 19.03.2000.
       The trial court acquitted the respondent from charges levelled against him in the aforesaid FIR.
       The respondent filed Writ Petition which was eventually allowed with further directions.
       The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeal.
       Finding of the court:
       Despite the rules not requiring appointment of presenting officer a presenting officer has to be appointed because Inquiry officer, being adjudicator, cannot act as presenting officer, the prosecutor.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Bhushan, J.

These appeals have been filed by the Union of India questioning the judgments of the Gauhati High Court by which writ petitions filed by the respondents challenging their orders of removal were allowed by setting aside the removal/dismissal orders and the respondents were directed to be reinstated. The High Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents on more or less similar grounds, hence, it shall be sufficient to notice the facts and pleadings in detail in Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012 for deciding this batch of appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012

2. The respondent- Ram Lakhan Sharma was appointed as constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “CRPF”) on 10.04.1991. On 23.10.1999 while he was posted as constable 11 Bn., CRPF at Agartala, Tripura he went out from Guard duty at 09.00 a.m. and returned back at 09.50 a.m. In the afternoon, an allegation was made by one lady Smt. Gita Paul making allegation of rape against the respondent and First Information Report was registered on 23.10.1999 at the Police Station under Section 376 IPC.

3. On 23.10.1999 the appellant was placed under suspension. On 04.12.1999 chargesheet was issued to the respondent containing articles of charges I and II. First charge was that the appellant remained absent without proper permission of competent authority with consent of his Guard Commander from his duty on 23.10.1999 from 0900 hrs. to 0930 hrs. Second charge was that he while functioning as constable (Guard) has committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force in that he tried to do sexual intercourse with a woman with mutual consent by giving money which amounts to indiscipline/moral turpitude.

4. The disciplinary authority appointed one Shri S.S. Bisht, Second-in-Command, 11 Bn CRPF as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer recorded the prosecution evidence. The Inquiry Report was submitted which was also supplied to the delinquent vide letter dated 07.02.2000 asking the respondent to submit reply within 15 days. The Commandant, 11 Bn passed an order on 19.03.2000 imposing penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 19.03.2000 under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.

5. On the basis of First Information Report registered against the respondent a chargesheet was submitted in the Court of Sessions Judge, Tripura, Agartala. Learned Sessions Judge after completing the trial on 20.09.2001 acquitted the respondent from charges levelled against him. After acquittal from criminal case the respondent filed a Writ Petition No.6778 of 2000 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging his order of removal. The High Court by order dated 20.05.2004 disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the respondent to file an appeal under CRPF Rules, 1955 within two weeks. In pursuance of the order of the High Court an appeal was filed before D.I.G.R., CRPF, Patna. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by its order dated 22.07.2004 against which order a revision was filed before the Inspector General of Police, CRPF which too was rejected on 02.03.2005. Challenging the order of removal as well as orders passed in appeal and revision the respondent filed Writ Petition (C) No.14 of 2006. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 12.04.2010 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the removal order and directed for reinstatement of the respondent. The learned Single Judge also permitted the appellant to initiate the disciplinary inquiry afresh from the stage of appointing Presenting Officer. It was further directed that if the departmental proceeding is required to be started afresh, the respondent shall be placed under suspension and during the period of suspension, subsistence allowance should be paid. It was left to the wisdom of the authority to decide on arrear pay and allowances of the respondent.

6. Union of India filed an ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 681

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.Union of India & Ors. – AppellantsVersusRam Lakhan Sharma – RespondentCivil Appeal Nos. 2608 of 2012; 6745, 9373-9374 of 2013 & 1800 of 2014Decided On : 02-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINTDespite the rules not requiring appointment of presenting officer a presenting officer has to be appointed because Inquiry officer, being adjudicator, cannot act as presenting officer, the prosecutor.

Cases Referred (6)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Ram Lakhan Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2608 of 2012; 6745, 9373-9374 of 2013 & 1800 of 2014
Decided On : 02-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Despite the rules not requiring appointment of presenting officer a presenting officer has to be appointed because Inquiry officer, being adjudicator, cannot act as presenting officer, the prosecutor.