Court affirms that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not invalidate enquiry proceedings if impartiality is maintained.
In a recent judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has upheld the dismissal of CRPF Constable Rajinder Singh, rejecting his appeal against a departmental enquiry that led to his termination. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, delivered the decision on May 14, 2026, following a detailed examination of the procedural fairness and compliance with legal principles in the enquiry process.
The case revolved around the appellant's dismissal from service, which was challenged on several grounds, including the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer during the departmental enquiry. The appellant argued that this omission rendered the enquiry invalid, as it allegedly compromised the impartiality of the proceedings. However, the court reiterated the principles established in the landmark case of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018), emphasizing that the absence of a Presenting Officer does not automatically vitiate the enquiry unless it can be demonstrated that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor.
The court found no evidence suggesting that the Enquiry Officer compromised impartiality by stepping into the role of a prosecutor. The appellant had been provided opportunities to cross-examine witnesses, which he availed, and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with procedural norms. Thus, the contention that the enquiry was biased was dismissed as without merit.
Another significant aspect of the case was the appellant's claim that a joint enquiry should have been conducted with his colleague, Constable Rajinder Singh, who was involved in the same incident but received a lesser punishment. The court, however, clarified that Rule 27(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, concerning joint departmental enquiries, is directory and not mandatory. It does not confer a vested right for joint proceedings, especially when the charges against individuals are distinct and varied in nature and gravity.
The appellant's final contention of being denied the opportunity for cross-examination was also negated. The court confirmed that the appellant had indeed cross-examined the witnesses, thus upholding the procedural integrity of the enquiry.
The judgment highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that disciplinary proceedings within security forces are conducted fairly, while also recognizing the discretion of disciplinary authorities in managing such enquiries. The court's decision serves as a precedent in affirming that procedural lapses must demonstrably affect the impartiality and fairness of an enquiry to warrant invalidation.
Bottom line:-
Departmental Enquiry - Non-appointment of Presenting Officer does not automatically vitiate enquiry unless the Enquiry Officer acts as a Prosecutor, compromising impartiality.
Statutory provision(s):
CRPF Rules, 1955 - Rule 27(d), Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, 2018(7) SCC 670
