Cross-Examination By Enquiry Officer For Clarifications From Witness Does Not Vitiate Enquiry Proceedings : Chhattisgarh HC

A Division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, held that an Enquiry Officer can do Cross-Examination and seek clarifications from witnesses during enquiry proceedings and it would not render the enquiry proceedings void. Background Facts The petitioner was working as Constable in the Chhattisgarh Police Department. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him for two charges. First that on 06.02.2009, he had gone unauthorizedly to Village Khoratola and locked the complainant inside a room. He abused and threatened complainant with jail over possession of wood. Further he illegally demanded a bribe of ₹5,000, which was a corrupt conduct. Second, that he remained absent from duty at Police Station which indicated negligence in duty. Therefore, a charge-sheet was issued on 12.05.2009 and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 30.12.2009, which held the charges as proved. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 30.01.2010 removing the petitioner from service. Then the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. But it was rejected vide order dated 17.05.2010. Thereafter, a mercy petition was filed before the Director General of Police, which was also rejected by order dated 05.10.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition, challenging the enquiry proceedings, dismissal order, and orders passed in appeal and mercy petition. But the petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on 14.02.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ appeal against the single judge order. It was contended by the petitioner that during inquiry, the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor by cross-examining both the petitioner and the witnesses which was beyond his role. Therefore, the enquiry was unfair and biased. It was further argued that the petitioner was never informed about his right to avail the assistance of a defence assistant, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 14(8) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It was further contended that the Enquiry Officer and the Superior Officer while acting as Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority, performed a quasi judicial function. The non-appointment of a Presenting Officer would not vitiate the enquiry. However, the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor which vitiated the enquiry. The petitioner also contended that the enquiry report did not comply with Rule 14(23)(c) and (d) of the Rules, 1966, because there was no proper assessment of evidence or reasoning given for holding the charges as proved. On the other hand, it was contended by the State that the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer is permitted to put questions to witnesses during enquiry proceedings for the purpose of clarification. Such conduct does not amount to bias or acting as a prosecutor. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in compliance with the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It was further observed by the court that although the petitioner was not informed of his right to avail a defence assistant, but he being a trained police personnel effectively cross-examined witnesses and produced documents in his defence, which showed that he was aware of his legal rights. It was observed that the petitioner also did not raise any request at any stage of the proceedings, and the issue was raised for the first time before the court, which appeared to the court as finding flaws in the proceeding. The case of State of U.P. vs. Harendra Arora and Another was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that not every infraction of statutory rules or procedures renders an action void. Substantive provisions must be strictly followed whereas procedural provisions can be evaluated using the doctrine of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice. Further the case of Mulchandani Electricial and Radio IndustriesLtd. vs. Workmen was also relied upon by the court wherein it was held that an Enquiry Officer is permitted to seek clarifications from witnesses. Further, if cross-examination follows, the enquiry remains valid and cannot be deemed unfair. Further the case of Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India was also relied upon by the court wherein it was observed with respect to Section 165 of the Evidence Act that enquiry officers in disciplinary proceedings can ask questions to uncover the truth, since strict evidence rules do not apply in such enquiries. It was noted by the court that the Inquiry Officer was well ...

Cross-Examination By Enquiry Officer For Clarifications From Witness Does Not Vitiate Enquiry Proceedings : Chhattisgarh HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Cross-Examination By Enquiry Officer For Clarifications From Witness Does Not Vitiate Enquiry Proceedings : Chhattisgarh HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers