ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 2-2-2006 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hoshangabad in File No. MN/HO.Kh./P.A./Bij/5985A/2006 by which the husband of the petitioner was removed from the service.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that husband of the petitioner was earlier posted as A.S.I. at Police Station Jhallar, District Betul. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against her husband. In the departmental enquiry, no Presenting Officer was appointed and the husband of the petitioner was found guilty for charge leveled against him and accordingly a major penalty of removal from service was imposed. A departmental appeal was filed by the petitioner. However, the husband of the petitioner died. It is submitted that a departmental appeal has not been decided so far.

3. The respondents have filed their return and denied the averments made in the petition.

4. Challenging the order of removal from service, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that no Presenting Officer was appointed and in fact the enquiry officer had acted as a Presenting Officer and thus the entire enquiry was vitiated. However, it is submitted by counsel for the State that the aforesaid defense has not been taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the husband of the petitioner.

5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

6. First question for consideration is as to whether non-appointment of Presenting Officer would vitiate the enquiry by itself or not?

7. The aforesaid question is no more res-integra.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma , AIR 2018 SC 4860 has held as under:

“23. The disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and the Enquiry Officer is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially. The authority exercising quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner.

24. Rules of natural justice have been recognised and developed as principles of administrative law. Natural justice has many facets. All its facets are steps to ensure justice and fair play. This Court in Suresh Koshy George vs. University of Kerala , AIR 1969 SC 198 had occasion to consider the principles of natural justice in the context of a case where disciplinary action was taken against a student who was alleged to have adopted malpractice in the examination. In Para 7 this Court held that the question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions. The following was held in Paras 7 and 8:

“7...........The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functions.

8. In Russell vs. Duke of Norfolk , (1949) 1 All ER 109 (CA) Tucker, L. J. observed:

“There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly, I do not der