The enquiry officer's dual role as prosecutor violated principles of natural justice, rendering the disciplinary proceedings invalid.

ORDER :

The petitioner herein, while working as Head Constable, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo under Rule 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (D&A) Rules, 1955 on the ground that the petitioner has given a prior information to the boot-leggars regarding an impending surprise visit, in connivance with them, disrespecting his superiors and also on the ground that he scolded certain persons who came to the police station for lodging a compliant. As the petitioner has denied the charges, the enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and accordingly, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report dated 25.01.2013. Thereafter, a copy of the report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner on 25.02.2013, and on submission of explanation/objection by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent passed an order dated 18.03.2013 imposing the punishment of “postponement of his next increment for three years which shall operate to postpone his future increment” vide proceedings dated P.R.66/2012 dated 18.03.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 09.04.2013 before the 2^nd respondent. However, the said appeal was also rejected by the 2^nd respondent by an order dated 15.05.2013 confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the 1^st respondent. It is aggrieved by the said orders dated 18.03.2013 and 15.05.2013, passed by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents respectively, the petitioner approached this Court by filling the present writ petition.

2. Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry into the charges in gross violation of principles of natural justice by acting as a prosecutor and cross-examining the witnesses on behalf of the department, thereby causing great prejudice to the petitioner and conducting the entire enquiry in a biased manner. He specifically contended that the Government witnesses 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 & 11 were declared hostile by the enquiry officer and he himself cross-examined the said witnesses and finally concluded that the said witnesses were managed by the petitioner to depose in his favour and based on such conclusion, the charges that are levelled against the petitioner were held to have been proved. Based upon the said report of the enquiry officer dated 25.01.2013, the impugned orders have been issued imposing the punishment as noted above.

3. This Court, after having gone through the report of the enquiry officer, is convinced that the enquiry officer has declared the above- mentioned witnesses as hostile and cross-examined them. The enquiry officer himself, acting as a prosecutor and cross-examining the said witnesses on behalf of the department is totally contrary to service jurisprudence and the same is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer is the one who is supposed to act unbiasedly and as a quasi-judicial authority and is expected to render unbiased finding basing upon the material placed before him by the Department as well as the delinquent employee.

4. As seen from the report of the enquiry officer and the observations made by the enquiry officer, it is evident that the attitude of the enquiry officer is pregnant with prejudice, against the delinquent employee, and without there being any evidence in support of the charges, the enquiry officer, having held that the Government witnesses have been won over by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the charges that are levelled against the petitioner are proved. Such an action on the part of the enquiry officer is highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

5. This aspect of the matter is not more res integra, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in AIR 2018 SC 4860. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court ha