UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAM LAKHAN SHARMA

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 02-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
RAM LAKHAN SHARMA
(Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012)
JULY 02, 2018
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Central Revenue Police Force Rules, 1955 – r.27 – Procedure
for conducting a departmental enquiry – Non-appointment of
Presenting Officer in the departmental inquiry – Effect of – On
facts, the High Court set aside the dismissal/removal orders of
respondents on the ground of non-appointment of Presenting Officer
in the departmental inquiry resulting in violation of principle of
natural justice; and that the Enquiry officer acted himself as
prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry – On appeal,
held: Rule 27 does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement
of appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry –
When statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting
Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles
of natural justice can be held violated is to be seen – Further, Inquiry
Officer who has to be independent and not representative of the
disciplinary authority if starts acting in any other capacity and
proceed to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence
to punish an employee, principle of bias comes into place – On
facts, the High Court held that Inquiry Officer acted himself as
prosecutor by leading the examination in chief of the prosecution
witness by putting questions, and Judge in the disciplinary enquiry
– Having acted as prosecutor also, capacity of independent
adjudicator was lost which adversely affected his independent role
of adjudicator – Thus, the principle of bias was attracted and High
Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders – Central Reserve
Police Force Act, 1949 – s.11(1) – Service Law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the Rule 27 sub rule (c) of the
Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 does not indicate that
Rule contemplates appointment of Presenting Officer. Service
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 48
48
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
conditions including punishment and appeal procedure of an
employee are governed by statutory rules. The CRPF Act, 1949
has been enacted by the Parliament for the constitution and
regulation of an armed Central Reserve Police Force. Section 18
of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for
carrying out the purposes of this Act. 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. The authority exercises quasi-judicial power has to
act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner. [Paras
22 and 23][58-G-H; 59-A-B]
1.2 Rule 27 does not indicate that there is any statutory
requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the
disciplinary inquiry. It is thus clear that statutory provision does
not mandate appointment of Presenting Officer. When the
statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting
Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles
of natural justice can be held to be violated is the broad question
which needs to be answered. The High Court found breach of
principles of natural justice in Inquiry Officer acting as the
prosecutor against the respondents. The Inquiry Officer who has
to be independent and not representative of the disciplinary
authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceed to act
in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish
an employee, the principle of bias comes into place. [Para 27][61-
D-E]
1.3 There is no requirement of appointment of Presenting
Officer in each and every case, whether statutory rules enable
the authorities to make an appointment or are silent. When the
statutory rules are silent with regard to the applicability of any
facet of principles of natural justice the applicability of principles
of natural justice which are not specifically excluded in the
statutory scheme are not prohibited. When there is no express
exclusion of particular principle of natural justice, the said
principle shall be applicable in a given case to advance the cause
of justice. [Para 33][66-B-C]
1.4 The question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is
supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as
UNION OF INDIA v. RAM LAKHAN SHARMA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be deci

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.