##PAGE1##

S/L 5

28.01.2026

Court No.04

B.K.N

F.M.A. 677 of 2020

With

CAN 5 of 2025

Union of India & Ors.

Vs.

A. Prabhakaran & Ors. (Force No. 8607880071) since

deceased, substituted by his legal heirs and

representatives, P. Navanethem and Others

Mr. Arijit Majumdar

… for the Appellants/U.O.I.

Mr. Anup Kr. Lahiri,

Mr. Dr. Bishnupada Dutta

… for the Respondents.

1. Heard the learned advocate for the Union of India.

2. The substituted writ petitioners are also represented by

Mr. Arup Kr. Lahiri.

3. The Union of India has put to challenge the order dated

17.05.2016 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge disposing

of the writ petition. He has allowed the writ petition

interfering with the punishment awarded by the

appellants in a departmental proceeding against the writ

petitioner/respondent, a Cook in the Force. The Hon’ble

Single Judge found the award of punishment to be

unsustainable on the ground that the Enquiry Officer

had proceeded in the enquiry performing the role of a

Presenting Officer. Relying upon decision of the Apex

Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and

Others –Vs.- Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in 2010

(2) SCC 772 the Hon’ble Single Judge was of the view

that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer, coupled

with the fact that the Enquiry Officer discharged the

2

duties of a Presenting Officer, vitiated the departmental

proceeding for want of fairness. The order of dismissal

was thus set aside and the Hon’ble Single Judge reserved

the liberty of the appellants to proceed against the writ

petitioner/respondent de novo.

4. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that

there was serious allegation of corruption against the

writ petitioner that he indulged in selling of uniform

articles in the CRPF barrack and other allied allegations.

The allegations have been brought home in the

proceeding which was conducted under the Central Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

[hereinafter referred to as CCS (CCA) Rules].

5. He submits that the point urged by the writ petitioner

regarding the absence of a Presenting Officer was devoid

of any substance. The Rule 14(5)(c) provides discretion

to the disciplinary authority to appoint or not to appoint

a Presenting Officer. In view thereof the submission

regarding the proceedings being vitiated for want of a

Presenting Officer required no consideration. The order

of the Hon’ble Single Judge relying on such issue to

interfere with the punishment order is, therefore,

unsustainable.

6. He further submits that a relevant development,

subsequent to filing of the present intra court appeal is

passing away of the writ petitioner on 01.11.2019. The

appellants, therefore, are not in a position to avail the

3

liberty for launching a de novo enquiry against the writ

petitioner.

7. The learned advocate for the substituted respondents

submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge

does not require any interference. The fact that the

employee is no more is admitted. Therefore, it is

obligatory on the part of the appellants to extend the

consequential benefits of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Single Judge whereby the dismissal has been set aside. In

support of such submission he has relied upon a decision

of the Apex Court in the case of Basudeo Tiwary –

Vs.- Sido Kanhu University and Others reported

in 1998 (8) SCC 194

8. Having considered the rival submissions we find no force

in submission of the learned advocate for the Union of

India relying upon Rule 14(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The law in this regard is by now settled by decision/s of

the Apex Court, including judgment passed in the case of

Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), which held that absence

of the Presenting Officer could not be countenanced as

an Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function

and, therefore, he cannot step into the shoes of the

Presenting Officer who is a representative of the

department. If such a situation arises, as in the present

case, the findings of the Enquiry Officer would stand

vitiated.

9. We find that the present writ petitioner’s ca