Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Ahanthembimol Singh, J.
Lalit Kishore - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1061 of 2019
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Presenting Officer - Departmental Enquiry - CRPF Rules 1955 Rule 27 - The court quashed the impugned orders on the technical ground of non-appointment of a presenting officer and directed the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a G.D. Constable in the CRPF, was terminated from service due to unauthorised absence after falling ill during earned leave. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, and he appealed against the punishment of removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry was conducted without appointing a presenting officer, and the enquiry officer assumed the role of a Judge and Prosecutor, prejudicing the petitioner's rights to a fair trial. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was the non-appointment of a presenting officer in the departmental enquiry, which prejudiced the petitioner's rights to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-appointment of a presenting officer vitiates the entire departmental enquiry and violates the principle of natural justice. The court relied on precedents to support the finding.
Final Decision: The impugned removal order, appellate order, and revision order were quashed and set aside. The respondents were given liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr.Th. Khagemba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents.
The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 07.05.2011 passed by the Commandant 165 Battalion, CRPF Tangasole, Salua, West Midnapur, West Bengal terminating the service of the petitioner from the CRPF, order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Dy. Inspector General, CRPF, Imphal Range, Manipur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against his termination order an order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Inspector General of Police (Manipur & Nagaland) Sector, CRPF, Imphal, Manipur, rejecting the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a G.D. Constable in the CRPF on 01.06.2004 and while he was posted at the 165 Battalion located at West Bangal, he applied for granting earned leave for a period of 30 days. The request for granting earned leave made by the petitioner was allowed by the concerned authority by granting earned leave to the petitioner for a period of 30 days w.e.f. 12.10.2009 to 10.11.2009. While the petitioner was on leave, he fell ill and was suffering from Jaundice (Hepatitis) and he was adviced to take complete rest by the concerned Doctor from 10.11.2009 to 19.01.2010. Due to his illness, the petitioner could not report for duty after expiry of the period of his earned leave and the petitioner reported for joining duty only on 14.07.2010 after obtaining medical fitness certificate from the concerned Doctor.
3. On account of his unauthorised absence from duty, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1955 by issuing a Memorandum dated 27.08.2010 by the Commandant, 165 Battalion, CRPF, Tangasole, Salua, West Midnapur, enclosing therein Article of charges, statement of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the Article charges framed against the petitioner, copy of the documentary evidence and list of witnesses. Thereafter, after conducting an enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report to the Commandant 165 Battalion, CRPF on 14.01.2011 thereby holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned order dated 07.05.2011 thereby awarding to the petitioner the punishment of removal from service w.e.f 07.05.2011.
4. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 01.07.2011 to the DIGP (Range) CRPF, Imphal to set aside the aforesaid punishment order issued by the Commandant 165 Battalion CRPF, however, the appellate authority did not find any ground for interfering with the order passed by the Commandant and dismissed the said appeal by issuing an order dated 24.10.2011. The petitioner again submitted two Revision Petitions dated 03.07.2019 and 03.08.2019 to the IGP, Manipur & Nagaland Sector, CRPF, to set aside the order of his removal from service and to reinstate him into the service. The said Revision Petitions were also rejected by the IGP as being devoid of merit by issuing the order dated 24.10.2019. Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for redressing his grievances.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one ground in assailing the impugned orders. It has been submitted by Mr. Th. Khagemba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was conducted without appointing a presenting officer and the enquiry officer himself acted as a presenting officer and conducted the examination in Chief of the prosecution witnesses and led them through the facts so as to present the case of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner and that the enquiry officer acted as a Judge and Prosecutor in the said enquiry. It has also been vehemently submitted by th
The non-appointment of a presenting officer in a departmental enquiry vitiates the enquiry and violates the principle of natural justice.
The absence of Presenting Officers in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice, necessitating the setting aside of dismissal orders and reinstatement of affected personnel.
The failure to furnish an enquiry report to an employee before the imposition of a penalty and the enquiry officer assuming the dual role of judge and prosecutor are violations of natural justice tha....
The court emphasized the importance of following principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and allowed the objection about the non-appointment of the Presenting Officer, leading to th....
Disciplinary inquiry vitiated if Disciplinary Authority acts as Enquiry Officer and prosecutor, records adverse witness statements without cross-examination, relies on unfurnished reports, creating r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an independent and impartial Enquiry Officer, the observance of natural justice, and the appointment of a Presenting Officer in....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
