Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 Date of decision: 29.03.2010 The State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The respondent-plaintiff, who was working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Patti, District Amritsar, had filed this suit to impugn the order of punishment removing him from service. A report was given on 07.07.1981 and on the basis of that the respondent-plaintiff was placed under suspension and was subsequently charge sheeted. As per the averment made by the respondent-plaintiff, Inspector Kashmir Singh nursed a grudge against him as he had filed a complaint against the said Inspector. It is, on this basis, stated that Kashmir Singh filed a false complaint against the respondent-plaintiff leading to his suspension or being charge sheeted on 16.07.1981. After inquiry, the punishment of removing the respondent-plaintiff from service was passed. The respondent - plaintiff filed the suit challenging the punishment and the inquiry held against him on number of grounds. He would Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 2 plead that inquiry officer himself acted as a presenting officer and prosecuted him. Copy of the documents were not supplied to him. The witnesses were not examined in-chief in his presence. No opportunity was allegedly given to the respondent-plaintiff of hearing before passing order of removal dated 13.11.1981. The suit was contested by the appellant raising objection to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the same. The appellant-State had justified the impugned order dated 13.11.1981 and had denied the other allegations as made in the complaint. On the basis of the pleading of parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the order of General Manager dated 13.11.81 is illegal as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPP. 3. Relief. The suit was dismissed against which the respondent- plaintiff had filed appeal before the First Appellate Court. Number of pleas were pressed. It was urged that the copy of the report was not supplied to the respondent-plaintiff due to which he suffered a material prejudice. It was also pleaded that it was a case of no evidence as no statement of any passenger was recorded. The inquiry officer had also allegedly cross examined the witnesses as there was no presenting officer appointed in this case. It was then stated that the reply filed by the respondent-plaintiff to the charge sheet was not considered. It appears from the response to these allegations that the Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 3 plea that the copy of the report was not supplied is almost conceded as can be noticed from the stand of legal advisor recorded in this regard in the impugned order. It is mentioned that summary of allegations served upon the appellant was in detail and hence it cannot be said that the official concerned did not know about the case against him. The First Appellate Court also came to take a view that the inquiry officer was himself somewhat prejudiced against the respondent-plaintiff. One of the question that was addressed to the defence witness was whether the name of the witness was mentioned in the reply filed or not. From this it was construed that the conduct of the inquiry officer was not proper and it gave an impression that if he was prosecuting the respondent-plaintiff and so appeared to be biased against him. Reference was made to the view taken in S. Krishnan Nair Vs. The Divisional Superintendent (Pb.), Southern Railway, Olavakod and others, 1973 (2) SLR 353, to say that where the inquiry officer had cross examined the witnesses then the inquiry may get vitiated. This issue has also been considered by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 2974 of 1985 decided on 11.03.2010. After making reference to Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and various sub rules, it is observed as under:- “Thus, the right of the Enquiry Officer to question even the delinquent employee or the witnesses would be inherent if Rule 8 of 1970 Rules is analysed properly. Mere fact that the Enquiry Officer had addressed certain questions either to the witnesses or even to the Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 4 delinquent employee would in itself be not enough to show that the enquiry, which was held, was in violation of principle of natural justice. What all in such circumstances is to be seen is whether the conduct of the Enquiry Officer was such which had depicted any bias leading to any prejudice to the employee facing the enquiry. The ratio of law that would emerge from Abdul Wajeed (supra) indeed would support this view. Detailed reference is made to the nature of questions addressed in this case by Enquiry Officer to the witnesses. Enquiry Officer had suggested to the witnesses supporting the delinquent employee that they had uttered falsehood and in this background, it was found that the Enquiry Officer was biased and had made up his mind to find the petitioner therein guilty of the charge. The report of the Enquiry Officer was reproduced in the order to bring home this point.” It is further observed as under:- “This issue, thus, is required to be appreciated in the background that the Enquiry Officer generally is required to address question and would have a right to question either the witnesses or even the delinquent employee. The right to address question may also be seen in the context of Court's power to address question. Though not applicable , reference may be made to Section 165 of the Evidence Act about the powers of the Courts to address question. This Section leaves a very wide power with the Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 5 court or the Judge to put questions or direct production of any material. The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or a thing. This being the wide power available with the courts, which are detailed to determine the issues, though may not be strictly apply to the enquiry proceedings but can certainly be taken as a guidance. To almost similar effect are the duties cast on the Enquiry Officer under Rule 8 of the Punishment Rules. He may not be a Judge in strict sense, but he is to judge a cause and has to decide on issues, for which he is detailed to enquire. Once Enquiry Officer is given power to question even the delinquent employee, it cannot be said that he would not be in a position to address questions to the witnesses and where he does so the proceedings are vitiated. What all, thus, is required to be seen is whether he has acted in a manner which will depict bias to show the violation of principle of natural justice.” In Abdul Wajeed Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 1981(1) SLR 454, it was observed as under:- “In my view, the cross-examination of PW-11 who had supported the version of the petitioner, and more particularly the cross-examination of the two defence witnesses by the Enquiry Officer suggesting to them that Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 6 they were uttering falsehood is sufficient to hold that the Enquiry Officer was biased and he had made up his mind to find the petitioner guilty of the charge.” What would thus emerge from the above is that the nature of questions addressed by the inquiry officer are required to be seen, in those cases where no presenting officer is appointed. The right of the inquiry officer to address questions to the witnesses or even to the delinquent employee could not be disputed and was found available but it would be the nature of questions that he addressed, which would determine whether he was in any manner biased against the delinquent employee or not. The nature of questions addressed would show some bias on the part of Enquiry officer. The questions addressed have been noticed and may give an indication of bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry is thus vitiated. The other point taken into consideration by the First Appellate Court is that the solitary statement of Chief Inspector, who had neither recorded the statements would make it a case of no evidence. This, however, cannot be accepted. This view, subsequently did not find approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and another versus Rattan Singh AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1512 (1). Accordingly, this part of the observation by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustained. However, considering the fact that the nature of question addressed by the inquiry officer may give indication of his bias, the substantial question of law would arise which has been rightly decided. Regular Second Appeal No. 3239 of 1986 7 Even perusal to the decision given in the year 1986 the respondent-plaintiff was reinstated into service. Thereafter, he has continued to serve the department. The prayer for grant of stay was also declined. The appellant-State has also not placed on record any substantial question of law despite directions. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. March 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE