M.A. Krishnan vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003
33. The learned Counsel has also relied upon ILR 1998 Kar. 897, Sri Radhakrishna Shetty v. Deputy General Manager, 1992 Labour & Industrial Cases 1832 (Madras) T.N. Govindaraju v. Indian Overseas and the order passed by this Tribunal dated 10.12.2002 in O.A. No. 1478/2001 K. Nandagopal v. Provest Marshal and Anr. In the case of K. Nandagopal's case, in para-16 it was held in the facts and circumstances of the said case that the enquiry officer himself had questioned the applicant which was treated as Examination in Chief as well as the Cross-examination of the applicant by the Inquiry Officer, which was held to be in not confirmity with the law i.e., the Inquiry Officer cannot assume the role of Presenting Officer as well as a prosecutor. In the case of Shri T.N. Govindarajan, the Inquiry Officer had found the petitioner therein guilty of charge No. 9 without considering the entire evidence adduced by the witnesses. In that context the Madras High Court had held that it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to consider the evidence as a whole and then come to a conclusion. Since the Inquiry Authority had not considered the entire evidence on record before recording his findings, the penalty order of compulsory retirement was held to be not sustainable. In the case of Radhakrishna Shetty, on examination of the facts of the said case, it was found that the management did not appoint a Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer had put questions to the witnesses and got marked the documents from the management witnesses. In that context, it was held that while revealing the truth the Inquiry Officer cannot go beyond his limit and play the role of prosecutor given an indication that he was not fair and that he was biased. It was also found in the said case that while cross-examination, the Inquiry Officer told the witnesses that their statement were not only unbelievable but also tried to impute motives to them. Under such circumstances, the High Court had held that the conducting enquiry in the absence of the Presenting Officer by the Inquiry Office as if he was the Presenting Officer was clearly opposed to the principle of fairness and also violated the principles of natural justice.