Allahabad High Court
Ashish Kumar Chauhan And Another vs Ravindra Verma And 3 Others on 5 July, 2021
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2057 of 2021
Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Chauhan And Another
Opposite Party :- Ravindra Verma And 3 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Chaturvedi,Dhirendra Nath Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants through video conferencing.
The instant petition has been filed for violating the judgment and order rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670.
The applicants while working as head constable/constable were subjected to disciplinary proceedings after placing them under suspension. In the disciplinary proceedings, punishment was imposed upon the applicants. Their departmental appeals and revisions under the Rules have also been dismissed.
Grievance of the applicants is that no presenting officer was appointed to represent the department before the enquiry officer during departmental proceedings. It is urged that in the circumstances, the principles of natural justice have been violated as the enquiry officer was not an independent adjudicator while exercising quasi judicial power. It is urged that the judgment of the Supreme Court has been flouted.
On perusal of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court noting therein that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the records of the departmental proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer himself led the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court returned a categorical finding that enquiry officer acted himself as prosecutor and judge in the said disciplinary enquiry which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Union of India was dismissed leaving it open to the appellants to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High court. The matter had arisen from the disciplinary proceedings held under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Act, 1949.
In the instant case, there is no such adjudication by any court in the matter. It is not open to this Court in exercise of contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act to return a finding of fact that the enquiry officer violated the principles of natural justice in the departmental proceedings by acting as adjudicator and prosecutor. The Supreme Court in Ram Lakhan Sharm (supra) noted that there is no legal compulsion that Presenting Officer in a departmental proceeding should be appointed, but if the enquiry officer plays the role of Presenting Officer, the inquiry would be invalid and bad in law.
In the given facts, the issue that is being raised by the applicants, in the first instance, before the contempt court cannot be gone into. The applicants would have to raise the issue before the competent forum and press the point that is being raised before this Court being a question of fact and law.
The contempt petition being misconceived is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
K.K. Maurya
