Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Tapash Choudhary & Ors v. DG, CRPF & Ors., has held that an Inquiry Officer cannot act as Presenting Officer and cross-examine witnesses as it is against the principles of natural justice.

What was the Background of Tapash Choudhary & Ors vs DG, CRPF & Ors. Case?

• The petitioners Tapas Choudhary and Mohammad Matiur Rahman were enrolled members of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on the post of Constable in the year 2000 and 2003 respectively.
• On 23^rd September 2009, a group of CRPF members acted violently and sabotaged the regimental property in Shivpur.
• Thereafter, the Petitioners were issued a charge sheet in respect of the aforesaid incident.
• Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioners, and they were removed from service by the Commandant.
• Appeals were preferred against the order of removal of service before Inspector General, Combat Battalions for Resolute Action, CRPF which were also dismissed.
• Thereafter, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh challenging the order of removal from service and the order for dismissal of appeal.
• The petition was allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Rajani Dubey observed that an Inquiry Officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer and cross-examine witnesses as it is against the principles of natural justice. And an Inquiry Officer cannot act as both prosecutor and judge.
• The Court relied upon the judgment of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018).
  • In this case the Supreme Court had clearly held that an Inquiry Officer who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor. The Supreme Court had further held that if the Inquiry Officer cross-examines the defence witnesses, then he acts as a prosecutor and thereby vitiates the inquiry.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Cross Examination

• An examination is simply the process of asking relevant questions relating to the fact in issue to a witness.
• Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the ways in which a witness can be examined. It states the following three ways:
  • Examination-in-Chief - The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
  • Cross-Examination – The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
  • Re-Examination - The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
• Section 138 of IEA deals with the order of examinations:
• It states that witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
• The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
• IEA has laid down the following set of guidelines for cross-examination:
  • As per Section 139, a person summoned to produce a document cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a witness.
  • As per Section 140, witnesses to character may be cross-examined and re-examined.
  • According to Section 143, leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.
  • As per Section 145, a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing.
  • Section 146 talks about questions lawful in cross-examination. It states that when a witness is cross-examined, he may ask any questions which tend––
    • To test his veracity.
    • To discover who he is and what is his position in life.
    • To shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.

Principles of Natural Justice

• About:
  • Natural Justice is a common law concept which emphasis on fair, equal and impartial delivery of justice.
  • It has been derived from the words ‘jus-naturale’ and ‘lex-naturale’ which emphasize the principles of natural justice, natural law and equity.
• Rules of Natural Justice:
  • Nemo Judex In Causa Sua – It means that no one should be a judge in his own case because it leads to the rule of biases.
  • Audi Alteram Partem – It means that no person can be condemned or punished by the court without having a fair opportunity of being heard.
• Case Laws:
  • In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977), the Supreme Court held that the concept of natural justice should be in every action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work which involve civil consequences to the parties.
  • In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court held that the Principles of Natural Justice are considered as fundamental and are therefore implicit in every decision-making functions.