Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Disciplinary Inquiry: Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 02 July 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 605
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a disciplinary inquiry be deemed fair if the Inquiry Officer also acts as the prosecutor? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, upholding the Gauhati High Court’s decision to set aside dismissal orders in cases where the Inquiry Officer took on the role of the prosecutor, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. This case highlights the importance of maintaining impartiality in departmental inquiries and ensures a fair process for employees facing disciplinary actions.

Case Background

The case involves a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India against judgments of the Gauhati High Court. The High Court had allowed writ petitions filed by several Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel, challenging their removal or dismissal orders. The High Court set aside these orders, directing the reinstatement of the personnel, primarily on the grounds that the disciplinary inquiries conducted against them violated the principles of natural justice. The core issue was that the Inquiry Officers acted as prosecutors, which compromised the fairness of the proceedings.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents, who were CRPF personnel, faced disciplinary inquiries for various charges, including absence from duty, being under the influence of alcohol, and desertion. In each case, the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer who conducted the inquiry. The Inquiry Officers recorded prosecution evidence, and based on their reports, the disciplinary authorities imposed penalties of removal or dismissal from service. Aggrieved by these orders, the personnel filed appeals, which were rejected by the appellate and revisional authorities.

Subsequently, the personnel filed writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. The High Court, upon reviewing the inquiry proceedings, found that the Inquiry Officers had acted as prosecutors by leading the examination of prosecution witnesses, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the dismissal orders and directed the reinstatement of the personnel, allowing the authorities to initiate fresh inquiries from the stage of appointing a Presenting Officer. The Union of India then filed appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decisions.

Legal Framework

The disciplinary inquiries were conducted under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Rule 27(c) outlines the procedure for conducting a departmental inquiry:

“Rule 27(c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:-
(1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry.
(2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of Guilty or Not Guilty after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral:
(i) it shall be direct:
(ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting, the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused:
(iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses.
(3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence be allowed to inspect such exhibits.
(4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads “Not guilty”, he shall be required to file a written statement and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed.
(5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders.
(6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings to the Commandant who shall record his findings and pass order where he has power to do so.”

The rules do not explicitly mandate the appointment of a Presenting Officer. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be followed in all quasi-judicial proceedings, including departmental inquiries.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• The appellants contended that the High Court erred in setting aside the dismissal orders based on the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer.
• They argued that Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, does not require the appointment of a Presenting Officer.
• They submitted that the respondents were given full opportunity to participate in the disciplinary inquiry, including being served with a chargesheet, cross-examining witnesses, leading evidence, and submitting a reply to the Inquiry Report.
• The appellants argued that even if the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer was a violation of natural justice, the respondents failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by this omission.

Arguments by the Respondents (CRPF Personnel):

• The respondents argued that the High Court correctly set aside the dismissal orders.
• They contended that the appointment of a Presenting Officer was necessary to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.
• The respondents submitted that the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor by questioning prosecution witnesses, thereby compromising the impartiality of the inquiry.
• They argued that the Inquiry Officer’s dual role as both prosecutor and judge tainted the entire inquiry process, and therefore, no further proof of prejudice was required.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondents’ argument that the Inquiry Officer’s actions as a prosecutor inherently violate natural justice, without the need to prove further prejudice, was a key point that resonated with the court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer in a disciplinary inquiry, as per Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, automatically invalidates the inquiry proceedings.
2. Whether the Inquiry Officer’s actions of leading the examination of prosecution witnesses and acting as a prosecutor violate the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the inquiry.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Suresh Koshy George vs. University of Kerala and others, AIR 1969 SC 198: The Court used this case to emphasize that the application of natural justice depends on the specific facts and circumstances.
• A.K. Kraipak and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1970 SC 150: This case was cited to highlight that the aim of natural justice is to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.
• State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010 (2) SCC 772: The Court relied on this case to underscore that an Inquiry Officer must be an independent adjudicator, not a representative of the department.
• Bharath Electronics Ltd. vs. K. Kasi, ILR 1987 Karnataka 366: This authority was used to support the view that an inquiry is invalid if the Inquiry Officer also acts as the Presenting Officer.
• Workmen of Lambabari Tea Estate vs. Lambabari Tea Estate, 1966 (2) LLJ 315: The Court cited this case to illustrate that an inquiry is vitiated if the Inquiry Officer becomes a prosecutor.
• Union of India and ors. vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR (2004) MP 821: This case was used to support the principle that bias can be presumed when the Inquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer.
• Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84: This case was cited to emphasize that the principles of natural justice have to be read into regulations even if not explicitly stated.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure fairness in disciplinary proceedings. The Court emphasized that an Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and should not take on the role of a prosecutor. The Court found that the Inquiry Officers in the present cases had compromised their impartiality by leading the examination of prosecution witnesses, thereby creating a bias against the respondents. This bias was deemed sufficient to vitiate the inquiry proceedings, regardless of whether the respondents could prove additional prejudice.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual details of each case. The focus was on the procedural impropriety of the inquiries.

The Court considered the argument that the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer did not automatically invalidate the inquiry. However, it emphasized that the principles of natural justice must be followed in all quasi-judicial proceedings. The Court rejected the argument that no prejudice was caused to the respondents, stating that the Inquiry Officer’s bias was sufficient to vitiate the inquiry. The Court also considered alternative interpretations but found that the Inquiry Officer’s actions as a prosecutor were a clear violation of natural justice.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the Inquiry Officer’s actions as a prosecutor compromised their impartiality. The Court emphasized that an Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and should not take on the role of a prosecutor. The Court observed that the High Court had rightly set aside the dismissal orders, giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh.

“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.”

“The disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and Inquiry Officer is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly, impartially.”

“When the statutory rule does not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer whether non-appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto vitiates the inquiry? We have noticed the statutory provision of Rule 27 which does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was composed of two judges, both of whom agreed with the final judgment.

The implications of this judgment are significant for future disciplinary inquiries. It reinforces the principle that procedural fairness is paramount in all quasi-judicial proceedings. The decision also underscores the importance of maintaining the independence and impartiality of Inquiry Officers.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather reaffirmed existing principles of natural justice and their application in departmental inquiries.

Key Takeaways

• The non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not automatically invalidate a disciplinary inquiry if the rules do not mandate it.
• An Inquiry Officer must act as an independent adjudicator and not as a prosecutor.
• If an Inquiry Officer leads the examination of prosecution witnesses, it creates a bias and violates the principles of natural justice.
• The violation of natural justice by an Inquiry Officer acting as a prosecutor is sufficient to vitiate the inquiry, and no further proof of prejudice is required.
• Disciplinary authorities must ensure that inquiries are conducted fairly and impartially.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, allowing the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High Court. The appellants were also given the liberty to decide on the arrear pay and allowances of the respondents.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer does not automatically invalidate a disciplinary inquiry, the principles of natural justice must be strictly followed. If the Inquiry Officer acts as a prosecutor, it violates the principles of natural justice, thereby vitiating the inquiry. This judgment reaffirms the existing legal position regarding the importance of impartiality in disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma emphasizes the critical importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries. By upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that Inquiry Officers must act as independent adjudicators and not as prosecutors. This judgment serves as a reminder to disciplinary authorities to ensure that all inquiries are conducted in a manner that respects the principles of natural justice and provides a fair opportunity for employees to defend themselves against allegations.