1 CGHC010250482021 2026:CGHC:37387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5476 of 2021 1 - Kamal Narayan Upadhyay (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 09-04-2026 1.1 - Smt. Saroj Upadhyay W/o Late Shri Kamal Narayan Upadhyay Aged About 50 Years R/o Quarter No 52/1253, Kushalpur, Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Raipur, P.S.- Purani Basti, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Crime Investigation And Railways Police Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Railways Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate alongwith Shri Rishabhdev Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/08/2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly quash the orders dated 19.08.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the respondent no.2 and the order dated 30/08/2005 (ANNEXURE P/2) issued by the respondent no.3. 10.3 To kindly direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits to the petitioner including full backwages, seniority and all monetary benefits in full. 10.4 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the husband of the petitioner was working in the Police Department and, at the relevant time, was posted in the office of the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Raipur. He would contend that the article of charge was served upon the husband of the petitioner on 29.8.2002, to which he duly submitted his reply. He would contend that the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 10.11.2002 and, subsequently, another Enquiry Officer vide order dated 3.1.2005. He would submit that the disciplinary authority failed to appoint a Presenting Officer and that the departmental enquiry proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer. He would submit that the Enquiry Officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 17.8.2005, whereafter the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of termination from service on 30.8.2005. He would submit that the husband of the petitioner challenged the said order by filing a departmental appeal, 3 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2021. He would submit that during the pendency of the petition, the husband of the petitioner died on 2.2.2024, and subsequently, his wife was impleaded as the petitioner. He would submit that since no Presenting Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer exercised the powers of both the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, the entire departmental enquiry stood vitiated. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Railway vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, reported in 2005 (1) LLJ 931. He would pray that the present petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the husband of the petitioner had consented to the conduct of the departmental enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. He would submit that, in view of the consent having been given, there was no necessity to appoint a Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer could conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with the rules. He would submit that the husband of the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity and, thereafter, the enquiry report was submitted. He would submit that the disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report and, looking to the misconduct committed by the delinquent employee and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. He would argue that the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is also argued that the petitioner has not alleged any incompetence on the part of the disciplinary authority or any violation of the principles 4 of natural justice and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. A perusal of the record of the departmental enquiry would reveal that the Presenting Officer was not appointed by the disciplinary authority and that the entire departmental proceedings were conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer acted both as the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer. The statements of the witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Officer himself. Though the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses, the flaw in the procedure cannot be rectified merely by permitting the delinquent employee to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the matter of Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (supra), 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 recognized 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.” 16. We may summarise the principles thus: 5 (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 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 6 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.” 7. Having considered the facts of the present case, the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (supra), and the fact that the Enquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer, the order imposing penalty and the order affirming the same passed by the Appellate Authority are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed. Since the delinquent employee has already died, no liberty can be granted to the Department to initiate the departmental enquiry afresh. The petitioner, being the wife of the delinquent employee, shall be entitled to all the benefits attached to the post. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present writ petition is disposed of. /- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi