In Brief
The Union of India appealed against Gauhati High Court orders setting aside CRPF removal/dismissal orders. The respondents (CRPF constables) were dismissed following disciplinary inquiries alleging misconduct including unauthorized absence and other charges. The High Court found that no Presenting Officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer himself led examination of prosecution witnesses as a prosecutor, violating natural justice principles. The Supreme Court held: while Rule 27 of CRPF Rules does not mandate appointment of a Presenting Officer, principles of natural justice require the Inquiry Officer to remain an independent, impartial adjudicator. When an Inquiry Officer acts as both judge and prosecutor through conducting examination-in-chief with leading questions, bias is presumed and the inquiry is vitiated. The Court upheld the High Court's orders setting aside dismissals and directing fresh inquiries, clarifying that applicability of natural justice principles depends on factual analysis of how evidence was recorded and presented in each case."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.