The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of natural justice and biasness in departmental enquiry proceedings can lead to the cancellation of punishment and relief for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the respondents are present.

2. At the very outset it has been submitted by Mr. Das that the affidavit-in-opposition as directed to be filed is somehow misplaced from his brief though copy of which has been served upon the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner.

3. In view of such, this Court granted liberty to file an authenticated copy of the affidavit-in-opposition for avoiding any further delay. In accordance with the request as made by this Court, Mr. Das has handed over an authenticated copy of the affidavit-in-opposition and the same be taken on record.

4. This Court has heard Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Advocate for the respondents/Union of India and its officials at length.

5. By filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to withdraw/revoke/cancel and/or rescind the order No. 272/2015 dated 30.09.2015 as passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 09.01.2017 as passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the present writ petitioner was awarded punishment to the extent reduction of five stages lower in present scale of pay, (i.e. from Pay Rs. 13,500/- + GP Rs. 4,200/- = Rs. 17,700/- to pay Rs. 11,050/ + GP Rs. 4,200/- = Rs. 15,250/-) for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The punishment was directed to be operated from 01.10.2015.

6. In course of his submission Mr. Lahiri at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the memorandum of charges as leveled against the present petitioner a copy of which has been annexed with the mark-P1 at page 50 of the writ petition. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the finding of the enquiry officer being Annexure-X to the supplementary affidavit, the punishment awarded by the respondent No. 3 being Annexure-P5 of the writ petition and the copy of the finding of the appellate authority being Annexure-P10 to the instant writ petition.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Lahiri that while conducting the departmental enquiry no presenting officer was appointed by the authority. However, from the minutes of the enquiry it would reveal that the enquiry officer not only examined the prosecution witnesses but also cross-examined the self-same prosecution witnesses in utter violation of the principles of natural justice which seriously affects the merit of the disciplinary proceeding. It is submitted by Mr. Lahiri that in a departmental proceeding an enquiry officer is supposed to act impartially and in the event it is found he acted as a prosecutor it can be safely contended that the said enquiry officer acted with utter biasness. Mr. Lahiri, thus, submits that on the aforesaid two grounds the instant writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders of punishment. In course of his submission Mr. Lahiri places his reliance upon a reported decision of Union of India and Others vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018) 7 SCC 670.

8. Per contra attention of this Court is drawn to the reply as filed by the respondents/Union of India as against the supplementary affidavit of the writ petitioner. It is contended by Mr. Das that from the minutes of the enquiry proceeding it would reveal that the writ petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses but he had not availed the same for the reason best known to him. It is further contended that as per provision laid down in Rule 153 of RPF Rules, 1987 there is no provision for appointing any presenting officer. It is further contended by Mr. Das that, however, there is a provision in the said rules being Rule 153.8 that the charged officer may be allowed took assistance of any other member of the force. It is further argued by Mr. Das that on close scrutiny of the entire minutes o