No Rule Forbids Presenting Officer From Acting As A Management Witness In Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court while upholding the order of removal of individual from service observed that no rule forbids the presenting officer from acting as a Human Resource Management witness.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition challenging the Assistant Manager's order removing the petitioner from service after disciplinary proceedings, as well as an order by the Deputy General Manager upholding the removal on appeal.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “There is no rule which forbids the Presenting Officer from acting as a management witness.”
Advocate Alok Mishra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Krishan Mohan Asthana appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner, appointed as a Probationary Officer, transferred multiple times, with his last posting as Assistant Manager at the Etawah Branch. He faced health issues due to diabetes leading to intermittent work absences. Later following a property dispute and subsequent arrest, the petitioner was suspended. After his release, he received a charge sheet. He denied the charges, citing serious illness and hospitalisation, but was ultimately removed from service by the Assistant General Manager. His appeal was rejected by the Deputy General Manager. Hence, the Writ Petition.
To answer the objection that was taken by the Petitioner that the Presenting Officer could not have acted as a management witness the Court relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in S.V.S. Marwari Hospital v. State of West Bengal and others and quoted, “…the fact that the complainant acted as the Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate a domestic enquiry if no other question of prejudice is there. There is no principle of natural justice which requires that a person who has lodged a complaint cannot be a Presenting Officer and a prosecutor in a domestic enquiry…If the delinquent employee has suffered any prejudice by reason of the Presenting Officer acting as a witness on behalf of the management, the enquiry proceeding will possibly be held to be vitiated. The prejudice must be real prejudice as opposed to formal prejudice, affecting some substantial legal right of the employee. Naturally, the burden is on the employee to establish such prejudice.”
The Court said that nothing is pleaded by the petitioner to the effect in what manner, by the fact that the Presenting Officer testified as a management witness, the petitioner was prejudiced in his defence. According to the Court in the absence of prejudice, there is nothing to disqualify the Presenting Officer from testifying as a management witness, particularly, when he is leading evidence on behalf of the Establishment, that is largely documentary in character, with which he is acquainted.
“there is no substance in the petitioner’s contention in this regard that the solitary witness examined being Presenting Officer himself, proceedings of the inquiry are vitiated.”, the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
