Enquiry officer cannot act as investigator, judge: SC

SC holds that in disciplinary proceedings an enquiry officer cannot dabble as an investigator and a judge.

The Supreme Court has held that in disciplinary proceedings an enquiry officer cannot dabble as an investigator and a judge to decide the guilt of an employee.

Moreover, the inquiry would be vitiated if sufficient opportunities are not given to the accused personnel to defend himself/herself before the enquiry officer, a bench of Justices R V Raveendran and P Sathasivam said.

Citing a number of its earlier rulings the apex court, in a judgement, said, “The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities.” The bench passed the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by the Uttaranchal Government challenging the High Court’s decision to quash the dismissal of a forest guard Kharak Singh, posted in the Nandhaur range of Haldwani Forest Division of the State.

Story continues below this ad

“It is clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as the investigator, prosecutor and judge. Such a procedure is opposed to principles of natural justice and has been frowned upon by this (apex) court,” the bench observed.

The Government dismissed Singh after an inquiry conducted by the Dy Divisional Forest Officer, P C Lohani, held him guilty of facilitating illicit felling of trees resulting in huge losses to the Government.

However, Singh’s dismissal was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the inquiry was flawed as the Government merely went by the findings of Lohani and sufficient opportunity was not given to the dismissed employee to put forth his defence.

The High Court had ordered the reinstatement of the penalised employee after noting that the Dy Division Officer not only acted as an investigating officer but also conducted the inquiry and thereafter recommended his dismissal, which was acted upon by the Government.

Story continues below this ad

Upholding the High Court’s findings, the apex court said that in Singh’s case the Dy Divisional Officer acted as a investigator, prosecutor and judge.

The apex court found no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court and said “Such a procedure is opposed to principles of natural justice,” the bench said.