IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 5600 of 2010 Reserved on: 19.10.2010 Date of decision: 20.10.2010 Ramesh Chand … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. . For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- i) That the order dated 2.7.2010, Annexure P-12 appointing Sh. Lal Singh, Inspector/CTS as Inquiry Officer may kindly be quashed and set-aside; ii) That all further proceedings in the inquiry against the petitioner from the stage of appointment of Inquiry Officer vide order dated 2.7.2010, Annexure P-12, including 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 inquiry report dated 24.8.2010, Annexure P-18, memorandum dated 25.8.2010, Annexure P-17 and show cause notice dated 1.9.2010, Annexure P-20 may also be quashed and set-aside; iii) That if any further order is passed by the respondents pursuant to show cause notice dated 1.9.2010 during the pendency of writ petition, in that event such order(s) may also be quashed and set-aside with all consequential benefits; iv) That the respondents may be directed to proceed from the stage of appointment of Inquiry Officer after quashing order dated 2.7.2010, Annexure P-12. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. He is working in the Communication and Technical Services side here-in- after referred to as the CTS. Vide order dated 22.5.2009 it was decided to hold a regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The main allegations against the petitioner were that on 14.5.2009 the petitioner was 3 deputed to undergo basic law course at PTC Daroh w.e.f.16.5.2009. It is alleged that the petitioner after noting down the wireless message instead of complying with the said order obtained a false certificate from the doctor that he is suffering from back pain and had been advised medical rest. It was further alleged that though on the one hand the petitioner claimed that he was suffering from severe pain in the spine and had been advised rest he attended a political meeting on 17.5.2009 at Hartu Mata Temple and a news item in the newspaper Shimla Bhaskar dated 18.5.2009 was evidence of this fact. 3. One Shri Roshan Lal Vashishth, Additional Superintendent of Police (CTS) was directed to conduct the inquiry. Shri Vashishth expressed his inability to conduct the inquiry and thereafter Shri Chander Mohan, Deputy Superintendent of Police (CTS) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. He served charge-sheet dated 5.4.2010 upon the petitioner. Certain witnesses were also examined before Shri Chander Mohan. One of the witnesses so examined was Shri Lal Singh, Inspector in CTS. On 2.7.2010 the inquiry which had been entrusted to Shri Chander Mohan, Deputy S.P. was transferred and entrusted to 4 Shri Lal Singh, Inspector in the CTS. Immediately, thereafter on 20.7.2010 the petitioner objected to Shri Lal Singh, Inspector conducting the inquiry on the ground that Shri Lal Singh had appeared as PW in the very same inquiry. Despite this objection Shri Lal Singh continued to hold the inquiry. He in fact issued a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner. The charges were replied to and thereafter Shri Lal Singh submitted his inquiry report on 24.8.2010. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner whether he had any objection to the said report. The petitioner filed detailed reply to the same and thereafter on 1.9.2010 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he be not punished under Section 87(2)(i) of the H.P.Police Act, 2007. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately approached this Court and on 9.9.2010 this Court directed that before final orders are passed on the show cause notice permission from the Court shall be obtained. The petitioner has specifically alleged that Shri Lal Singh, who was later appointed as Inquiry Officer, had appeared as PW-1 and therefore could not have conducted the inquiry. The stand of the State is that Shri Lal Singh was only a formal witness in the 5 inquiry and no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by entrusting the inquiry to Inspector Lal Singh. It has been also averred that both Shri Roshan Lal and Chander Mohan failed to complete the inquiry for about 13 months thereafter Shri Prem Chand Bhatia Dy.S.P. was asked to conduct the inquiry but he declined to conduct the same and as such there was no other option but to entrust the inquiry to Inspector Lal Singh. 5. In my considered opinion there can be no manner of doubt that a person cannot be a witness and a judge in the very same case. According to the petitioner Shri Lal Singh was not a formal witness but in fact a major witness. However, assuming for the sake of argument that Shri Lal Singh was a formal witness then also there can be no manner of doubt that a person who is a witness in a case cannot also be appointed as a judge in the case. The entrustment of the inquiry to Shri Lal Singh who had already been examined as a witness in the departmental proceedings against the petitioner is highly irregular and illegal. It appears that the respondents were under the impression that only a person from the CTS wing could have been appointed an Inquiry Officer. This impression is totally wrong. 6 Any Police Official of competent rank from any wing of the police could have been appointed. In any event, as has been clearly held above Shri Lal Singh being a witness could not have been entrusted with the inquiry. 6. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed and the inquiry proceedings from the stage when Shri Lal Singh was appointed Inquiry Officer are quashed and set-aside. Resultantly, the Inquiry report and the show cause notice are also quashed and set- aside. Liberty is, however, given to the respondents to appoint a new Inquiry Officer and to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law from the stage when the same was transferred from Sh. Chander Mohan, Dy.S.P to Sh. Lal Singh and complete the same in accordance with law. I may make it clear that this case has been decided only on the ground that Shri Lal Singh was not competent to be appointed as Inquiry Officer and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges which the newly appointed inquiry officer can decide on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry proceedings. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 20th October, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.