Maibam B.K. Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

2. There is no dispute in respect of the following essential facts:

The Appellant, who was serving as a Rifleman of C-Coy, 7 Battalion Manipur Rifles was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.03.2002 passed by the Commandant, 7th Battalion Manipur Rifles, purportedly on receipt of a report from the Superintendent/Imphal West on 24.03.2002 about the Appellant-writ Petitioner having been asserted in connection FIR Case No. 104 (3) 2002 IPS under Section 384/511/34 IPC and 10/13 UA (P) Act and remanded to police custody from 24.03.2002 to 30.03.2002. However, he was reinstated to his service with immediate effect vide order dated 29.8.2002 passed by the Commandant without prejudice to the Departmental Enquiry proposed to be proceeded against him. On 10.06.2002, a memorandum was issued by the Commandant regarding the said departmental inquiry by enclosing the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, statement of articles of charges and other necessary information. The enquiry was made by the Dy. Commandant, 7th Battalion Manipur Rifles and basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 11.12.2003, the Appellant-writ Petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 04.10.2004 passed by the Commandant, 7th Battalion, Manipur Rifles. An appeal filed as against the said order of the Commandant, 7th Battalion Manipur Rifles was dismissed on 23.09.2005. Thereafter, the Appellant-writ Petitioner filed WP (C) No. 236 of 2006 praying for quashing the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 11.12.2003, the order of the Commandant, 7th Battalion Manipur Rifles dated 04.10.2004 and the order of the appellate authority dated 23.09.2005. In effect, the case of the Appellant-writ Petitioner was that the said Departmental Enquiry was not proceeded fairly, in accordance with the relevant rules and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Learned Single Judge rejected the said writ petition, vide the impugned judgment and Order dated 16.04.2009, holding that the enquiry had been conducted fairly, without bias and with due compliance with the relevant rules, and as such, no interference was warranted in respect of the impugned orders by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. This appeal has been filed challenging the legality of the judgment and Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2009, on various grounds. Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-writ Petitioner submits that though the Appellant-writ Petitioner raised the issues of non-appointment of any presenting officer in the enquiry and as such of vitiating the said inquiry, the Learned Single Judge did not consider the issues. On the other hand, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior Govt. Advocate submits that the said issues have been raised for the first time in this appeal. On perusal of the pleadings of the writ Petitioner-Appellant, we have ascertained that there was an allegation about "the Enquiry Officer taking the role of the Presenting Officer, i.e. the role of a Judge as well as a Prosecutor". Though the said wordings are not happy, we are of the opinion that the said pleadings of the writ Petitioner-Appellant are to the effect that no Presenting Officer was appointed in the said enquiry. Even assuming that the said issue of non-appointment of Presenting Officer in the enquiry has been raised for the first time, for the said issue of law, examination of evidence or investigation of the facts is not required.

4. In Rajeswari Amma and Anr. v. Joseph and Anr. (1995) 2 SCC 159, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that new plea regarding the question of law could be raised for the first time before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 58 of 2007 held on