Fire Man-270 Sri Tapan Buzarbaruah vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 11 May, 2023
In that regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred
to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad vs. B.
Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jamini Devee vs. the State of Assam , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Gau 2002 . The learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that it is the requirement of law that a Presenting Officer
has to be appointed. However, in the instant case, no Presenting Officer was appointed. The
Enquiry Officer also took up the role of the Presenting Officer which vitiated the enquiry
proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was
not informed that he was entitled to a Defence Assistant and for such reason, the petitioner
had no clue as regards how to conduct the proceedings which had resulted in the petitioner
not cross-examining the various witnesses during the course of the enquiry proceedings and
Page No.# 7/13
corollary thereto to prejudice was caused to the petitioner.