The Hindu : National : Enquiry officer cannot be prosecutor and judge

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Aug 17, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Enquiry officer cannot be prosecutor and judge

Legal Correspondent

Enquiry against workman should not be an empty formality
He must be given chance to cross-examine employer’s witnesses

New Delhi: If an officer himself notices misconduct on the part of a workman, it is desirable that an enquiry and disciplinary proceedings be entrusted to another officer as the enquiry authority cannot be a prosecutor and judge, the Supreme Court has held.

“The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that enquiries do not become empty formalities; if an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of an enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer,” said a Bench consisting of Justices R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam.

“If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer,” the enquiry should be assigned to some other officer. The employer/department should first lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, and give him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter could the workman be asked whether he wanted to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy and all connected material relied on by the enquiry officer to the workman to enable him to offer his views, if any.”

In the instant case, Kharak Singh was working as a temporary forest guard in the forest division in Nainital, Uttaranchal. During May 1984, the sub-divisional forest officer, Nadhaur, seized 27 logs of sal bearing a transit hammer mark and Singh could not properly explain the mark. He was placed under suspension and an enquiry was conducted by the same officer, who recommended his dismissal. The Uttaranchal High Court quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement of Singh.

State appeal dismissed

Dismissing the State’s appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court Bench said: “It is clear from the material that the officer who inspected and noted the shortfall of trees himself conducted the enquiry and recommended Singh’s dismissal. The entire action and the course adopted by the enquiry officer cannot be accepted and are contrary to the well-known principles enunciated by this court. It is clear that the enquiry officer himself has acted as the investigator, prosecutor and judge. Such a procedure is opposed to the principles of natural justice and has been frowned upon by this court.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National