1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the order dated 10.8.2016 (Annexure P-1), by which the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone exercising his revisional powers under Clause 270(4) of the M.P. Police Regulations set aside the penalty of withholding of one increment cumulatively imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 18.7.2016 and instead has inflicted major penalty of compulsory retirement.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order has raised various grounds which include perversity of findings as based on evidence which was in admissible on the anvil of preponderance of probability and also that the Inquiry Officer stepped into the shoes of the prosecutor by not only cross-examining the petitioner but also cross-examining the defence witness Dharmendra produced by petitioner in support of his defence.

3. Since, this Court after hearing learned for the rival parties is of the considered view that the ground of the Inquiry Officer being a Judge of his own cause appears to be appealing, this Court refrains from going into the other grounds as it may adversely affect the further inquiry before the Disciplinary Authority, which this Court proposes to direct.

4. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v.. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, 2005(1) LLJ 931 para 16 of which is relevant to emphasise the extent to which the Inquiry Officer can ask questions to different stakeholders in a departmental inquiry and as to when such questioning can become a legitimate cause for delinquent employees to the ground of bias on the part of Inquiry Officer. Relevant para 16 of the said judgment is reproduced below :

We may summarise the principles thus :

(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.

(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.

(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to illicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications.

(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-if-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.

(v) As absence of a presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognized that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is led in any recorded in the inquiry. Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiate, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases

5. Issue of similar kind was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gaya Prasad v. State of M.P. and others [2008(4) MPLJ 35] and Ramesh Chand Rathore v. State of M.P. and others [2010 (II) MPWN 80], relevant paras of which are reproduced below :

Ram Prakash Gaya