2025:CGHC:29990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2293 of 2014 Reserved on : 09.04.2025 Delivered on : 02.07.2025 Ashok Kumar Pandey S/o Late T.P. Pandey, Aged About 52 Years, Occupation- Sub-Inspector, Police Department, At present posted at P.S. Sanna, Tehsil & District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Police Head Quarter, Civil Lines, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General of Police Sarguja Range, I.G. Office, Ambikapur, P.S. & Tehsil Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent of Police Sarguja Disttrict, S.P. Office, Ambikapur, Tehsil & District- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Baghel, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. CAV ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3/Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range, Surguja by which the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2/ Director ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.02 17:12:20 +0530 General of Police, Raipur by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order, has been rejected. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that:- (A) The petitioner who was working as Sub-Inspector in the Police Department and posted at District- Surguja was served with charge- sheet on 13.01.2010 alleging that 16 prisoners were transferred to Central Jail, Bilaspur and Raipur for treatment. The petitioner was directed to go to Raipur with the prisoners after getting one female prisoner admitted in Central Jail Bilaspur but the petitioner stayed at Bilaspur and one of prisoner-Mohammad Shamim @ Ahmed ran away from police custody at Raipur and has shown gross negligence in discharging his duty. (B) A preliminary enquiry was initiated by respondent No. 4/Superintendent of Police, Surguja against all the Police officials involved in the incident who has submitted his report wherein prima involvement of the petitioner was reflected, therefore, regular joint enquiry was ordered. The respondent No. 4 appointed one Deputy Superintendent of Police as Enquiry Officer who has submitted his report on 02.12.2010. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence, material collected during the enquiry has held that the petitioner was negligence towards discharging his duty and the charges leveled against him were found proved. The disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No. 3/Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range vide order dated 20.07.2011 (Annxure P/2) inflicted the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect for one year. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred representation/appeal before respondent No. 2/Director General of Police, Raipur on 05.09.2011 which has been rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 08.11.2013. Hence, this petition has been filed for quashing of both the orders. 3. The State has filed its return denying the allegations made in the petition contending that the respondents have conducted the departmental enquiry in which charges have been found proved. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner has been conducted in accordance with the principle of natural justice and fair play and the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It has also been contended that the disciplinary authority looking to the conduct of the petitioner has imposed punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect which is proportionate to the misconduct and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It has also been contended that even otherwise the imposition of punishment is managerial function which is not liable to be interfered by the Courts unless it touches the conscious of the Courts or disproportionate to the misconduct and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit from perusal of record it is quite vivid that no Presenting Officer has been appointed, only Enquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer has excessively cross-examined the witnesses which is against the principle of natural justice and fair play as the Enquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor and Judge. He would further submit that since the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry which is in violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is bad in law and the appellate order passed by respondent No. 2 against imposition of punishment is also liable to be quashed. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma [AIR 2018 SC 4860]. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law wherein sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. He would further submit that in the enquiry some questions have been put by the Enquiry Officer, which do not vitiate the enquiry and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. This Court has called upon the original record of the enquiry proceeding for perusal and following facts have been revealed:- (i) A preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Surguja against the petitioner along with Ravilal Bagh, Head Constable-Simon Ekka, Constable- Rakesh Singh, Constable- Balram Bhagat, Constable- Vishwas, Constable- Bihari Ram, Woman Constable- Sarla Toppo & Woman Constable- Rijni Tigga, Driver Constable- Ghasiram wherein finding has been recorded that the aforesaid officials were negligent towards discharging their duties due to which prisoner-Mohammad Shamim @ Ahmed got chance to run away from police custody. (ii) On the basis of fact finding enquiry, the petitioner was charge- sheeted on 13.10.2010 wherein following charges have been levelled against him:- “fnukad 29-7-09 dks dsUnzh; tsy vafcdkiqj ls chekj 16 cafn;ksa ds bZykt gsrq dsanzh; tsy fcykliqj ,oa jk;iqj LFkkukarj.k djus gsrq jokuk fd;k x;k Fkk tks fcykliqj dsanzh; tsy esa 1 efgykcanh dks tek djus ds ckn 'ks"k cafn;ksa dks ysdj dsanzh; tsy jk;iqj esa tek djus gsrq jk;iqj tkuk Fkk tks jk;iqj u tkdj fcykliqj esa :ddj drZO; ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh iznf’kZr djuk ftlls lqj{kk dh deh gksus ls canh 'kehe dks Qjkj gksus dk volj izkIr gqvkA” (iii) The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet mainly contending that the Police vehicle was stopped nearby Medical College Hospital, Raipur on 30.07.2009 at about 4:30 p.m. and the accused requested for nature call, he stepped down from vehicle and thereafter absconded. On 31.07.2009, he was again arrested by Constable- Rakesh Singh at Village- Devri, P.S. Batouli and information in this regard had been given immediately to the Superintendent of Police and other officers. It has also been contended that he was discharging his duty and was not stayed at Bilaspur, therefore, the charges levelled against him are false and not acceptable to him. (iv) The respondents were dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated by respondent No. 4 wherein R.K. Mishra, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ambikapur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The prosecution to prove the case has examined witnesses namely Head Constable- Veer Kishan Minz (PW-1), Rambachan Ram (PW-2), Jodhsingh Saggu (PW-3), Head Constable- Lalsai (PW-4), Child Constable- Prafull Chand Paikra (PW-5), Woman Constable- Sarla Toppo (PW-6), Woman Constable- Ku. Rijni Tigga (PW-7), Bhupendra Singh Gour (PW-8), Addl. S.P. Arvind Kujur (PW-9), Driver Constable- Ghasiram (PW-10) & Kuldeep Minz (PW-11). The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence and material on record, has held that the petitioner was negligence towards his duties and accordingly, the punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. From pleadings of the parties, the point emerged for determination of this Court is:- “Whether the enquiry proceeding is liable to be vitiated on account of non-appointment of Presenting Officer causing prejudice to the petitioner to defend his case which is against the principle of natural justice?” Discussion and finding on the Point 9. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the Presenting Officer has not been appointed and only Enquiry Officer was appointed who has cross-examined the witnesses as well as put question in extensive and not by way of clarification, as such the Enquiry Officer has not only acted as prosecutor but also as judge which is in violation of principle of natural justice as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held as under:- “35. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High court giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012. 36. The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases. ” 10. High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Union of India & others Vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui [2005 (1) LLJ 931] has held as under:- “4. The leading decision of which is the case of Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi and Others v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui reported in 2005 (1) LLJ 931 where in the Supreme Courtin paragraph 7 has held as under :- “7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice“ is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets: (i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias, (ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor, (iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator, (iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator, (v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges, (vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others, (vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated. Further, in paragraph-16, Their Lordships summarized the legal position by observing as under:- (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. Page 8 of 9 (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 elicit 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-in-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 recognised 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 let in and 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 vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may.” 11. Similarly, Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of N.R. Dhananjayan Vs. Management of Indian Overseas Bank & another [2006 LLR 726] has held in paragraph 8 as under:- “8. From a reading of the entire proceedings what is clear to us is that the Enquiry Officer seemed to be under the impression that he was representing the management as is evident from these proceedings. The way in which the proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer and the way in which the questions were posed by him, witnesses were examined prove in unmistakable terms that the Enquiry Officer has assumed the role of a prosecutor and a Judge in the case on hand. Law is fairly well-settled that the Enquiry Officer can only seek clarification. Clarification has to be a real clarification in the real sense but not examination-in-Chief/cross-examination etc., as is done in the present case.” 12. In light of the abovestated decision, it is quite vivid that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the whole enquiry by acting as Presenting Officer as well as Enquiry Officer which is the role of Prosecutor and Judge. As such, the order dated 20.07.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No. 3/Inspector General of Police withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and the appellate order dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2/ Director General of Police, Raipur by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid punishment order, are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. 13. Consequently, the Point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Since the petitioner must have attained the age of superannuation, therefore, his pension and retiral dues will be recalculated after adding one increment within four months from today on account of quashing of the punishment order as well as the appellate order by this Court. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun