The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a departmental inquiry is not vitiated merely because the Enquiry Officer asks clarificatory questions to witnesses, and that the six-month limitation under Rule 29 of the M.P. Civil Services Rules applies only to the initiation of revision, not its conclusion. This judgment reinforces procedural fairness in service matters while affirming the discretionary powers of superior authorities in revising penalties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Rajkamal Pathya, was serving as a Constable in the Police Department, posted at Police Station Tendua, District Shivpuri. He was placed under suspension on 02.04.2020 following allegations of misconduct. A charge-sheet was issued levelling three charges against him. He submitted a written reply denying all allegations. A departmental inquiry was conducted, but the prosecution witnesses, including key eyewitnesses, failed to support the allegations. The Enquiry Officer, in the absence of a designated Presenting Officer, posed questions to certain witnesses to clarify inconsistencies in their testimonies.
Key Facts
- The respondent was suspended on 02.04.2020
- Charge-sheet issued on 15.04.2020
- Written reply submitted by respondent on 30.04.2020
- Departmental inquiry concluded with submission of Enquiry Report on 18.11.2022
- Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri, imposed minor penalty of stopping one increment with cumulative effect on 02.12.2022
- On 29.03.2023, the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone, issued a show-cause notice proposing major punishment of dismissal under Regulation 214 of the M.P. Police Regulations
- Respondent submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 15.04.2023
- Final order of dismissal was passed by Inspector General of Police on 20.06.2023
- Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 18955 of 2023 on 10.07.2023 challenging the dismissal order
- Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 27.08.2024, setting aside the dismissal
- State filed this writ appeal on 15.09.2024
Procedural History
- 02.04.2020: Suspension order issued
- 15.04.2020: Charge-sheet served
- 30.04.2020: Respondent’s reply submitted
- 18.11.2022: Enquiry Report submitted
- 02.12.2022: Minor penalty imposed by Superintendent of Police
- 29.03.2023: Show-cause notice for major penalty issued by Inspector General
- 15.04.2023: Respondent’s reply to show-cause notice
- 20.06.2023: Order of dismissal passed by Inspector General of Police
- 10.07.2023: Writ Petition filed before Single Judge
- 27.08.2024: Single Judge allowed writ petition
- 15.09.2024: Writ Appeal filed by State
- 15.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Division Bench
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (Respondent in Appeal): Argued that the Enquiry Officer acted as both investigator and prosecutor by cross-examining witnesses, thereby violating the principle of impartiality. Further contended that the revision under Regulation 270 was initiated beyond the six-month period prescribed under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, rendering the dismissal order invalid.
For the Respondent (Appellant State): Contended that the Enquiry Officer only asked clarificatory questions to elicit truth, not to build a prosecution case. Further argued that Regulation 270 imposes no time limit for suo motu revision, and even if Rule 29 were applied, the limitation applies only to initiation of review, not its conclusion.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the dismissal order dated 20.06.2023, reinstatement with full back wages and service benefits, and costs. The State sought setting aside of the Single Judge’s order and affirmation of the dismissal.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Enquiry Officer’s questioning of witnesses during a departmental inquiry, in the absence of a designated Presenting Officer, amounts to acting as a prosecutor and vitiates the proceedings; and (2) Whether the six-month limitation under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the M.P. Civil Services Rules, 1966, requires the revision of a penalty to be concluded within that period, or whether it applies only to the initiation of revision.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui (ILR 2004 MP 821) and Sushil Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P. (2007 MPLJ 392) to argue that an Enquiry Officer who questions witnesses to elicit evidence supporting the prosecution, especially by cross-examining defence witnesses or leading them to incriminating answers, effectively assumes the role of a prosecutor. He further contended that Rule 29(1)(iii) mandates that any review or revision must be concluded within six months of the original order, and since the dismissal order was passed on 20.06.2023 - more than six months after the penalty order of 02.12.2022 - the revision was time-barred.
For the Respondent/State
The State relied on Kamla Krishna Sharma v. State of M.P. (2025 MPLJ 45) and Writ Appeal No. 900 of 2023 (State v. Lal Singh Jatav) to argue that Rule 29(1)(iii) only prescribes a time limit for initiating revision, not concluding it. It emphasized that Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations, which governs the respondent as a Constable, contains no time limit for suo motu revision. The State further submitted that the Enquiry Officer’s questions were limited to clarifying contradictions in witness statements, particularly from PW-5 (Gokaran) and PW-8 (Pintu Sengar), and did not constitute prosecution conduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the principles laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, which established a nuanced distinction between an Enquiry Officer acting as a neutral adjudicator and one acting as a prosecutor. The Court noted that while the Enquiry Officer cannot conduct examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses, lead them to predetermined answers, or cross-examine defence witnesses to undermine their testimony, he may ask clarificatory questions to ascertain the truth.
"The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to cross-examine such witnesses on those clarifications."
The Court found that in the present case, the Enquiry Officer’s intervention was confined to two witnesses who had retracted their earlier statements. For PW-5, the officer sought to understand the reason for the retraction. For PW-8, the Presenting Officer himself declared the witness hostile and asked leading questions - not the Enquiry Officer. The Court held that the Enquiry Officer’s conduct was consistent with his duty to ensure a fair and complete record, and did not amount to advocacy.
Regarding the limitation issue, the Court examined Rule 29(1)(iii) and Regulation 270. It observed that Rule 29 applies to government servants under the M.P. Civil Services Rules, but the respondent was governed by the M.P. Police Regulations, which are a special law. Regulation 270 explicitly permits suo motu revision by any superior authority without prescribing any time limit. Even if Rule 29 were applied by analogy, the Division Bench in Kamla Krishna Sharma had held that the six-month period applies only to the initiation of revision, not its conclusion. The Court emphasized that requiring conclusion within six months would defeat the legislative intent, especially where the delinquent employee delays proceedings or where complex evidence requires further scrutiny.
The Court further noted that the revision was initiated within six months of the original penalty order (show-cause notice issued on 29.03.2023, within six months of 02.12.2022), and the final order dated 20.06.2023 was merely the culmination of a process that began in time. No prejudice was shown to the respondent, and the inquiry was otherwise fair.
The Verdict
The State succeeded. The Division Bench set aside the order dated 27.08.2024 of the Single Judge, affirmed the dismissal order dated 20.06.2023, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the departmental proceedings were valid, the Enquiry Officer did not act as a prosecutor, and the revision was initiated within the statutory period. No monetary relief or reinstatement was ordered. The dismissal stands final.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Clarificatory Questions Are Permissible
- Practitioners must distinguish between an Enquiry Officer asking neutral clarifying questions and one conducting examination-in-chief or cross-examining defence witnesses
- In cases without a designated Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer’s limited intervention to resolve contradictions is lawful and does not vitiate proceedings
- Defence counsel should focus on the manner of questioning - not its mere existence - when challenging bias
Revision Time Limits Are Procedural, Not Absolute
- For police personnel governed by M.P. Police Regulations, there is no statutory time limit for suo motu revision under Regulation 270
- Even where Rules of 1966 apply by analogy, the six-month period under Rule 29(1)(iii) applies only to initiation of revision, not its conclusion
- Delay in concluding revision does not automatically invalidate proceedings, provided initiation is timely and no prejudice is caused
- Practitioners must plead and prove actual prejudice from delay, not merely the passage of time
Special Regulations Override General Rules
- Service rules applicable to general government servants (e.g., M.P. Civil Services Rules) do not automatically govern police personnel
- Where special regulations (e.g., M.P. Police Regulations) exist, they prevail over general rules
- Legal arguments must be grounded in the specific service rules applicable to the employee’s cadre
