Judgment :- Ajit J. Gunjal, J. A Departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner according to the procedure laid down in Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 (for short, `the Rules'). He is visited with the penalty of dismi ssal from service with effect from 31.03.2005. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The appellate Authority has also confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. A revision was preferred to the Inspector General of Police, who pursuant to order at Annexure-A has confirmed the order of dismissal as well as the holding of departmental enquiry. 2. The facts germane for disposal of this petition can be summarized as follows: The petitioner joined the services of the respondent. As on the date when the departmental enquiry was initiated under two articles of charges, he was working in Battalion 174. The premise of the charges is that when the petitioner was working as a Constable committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force inasmuch as on 01.11.2004, while availing 27 days of earned leave at his Government quarters trespassed into the Hoysala Barracks where recruits of 174 Bn, CRFP were housed and has committed theft of Rs.33,400/-(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand and Four Hundred) and a mobile phone (Samsung Dual Band GPRS SGH-X100) and his action is prejudicial to the good order of the Force. The second charge is that he was guilty of misconduct in his capacity, inasmuch as, he was caught red-handed stealing money and other valuables from the barracks of recruits of 174 Bn and thereby he has failed to maintain a responsible and decent standard of conduct which is unbecoming of a disciplined Force person and prejudicial to the good order of the Force. A charge memo was issued along with the imputations to which the petitioner filed his reply denying any act of misconduct as alleged is committed by him. The Deputy Commandant of the Battalion was appointed as enquiry officer. In support of the charges, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and some of them were cross examined by the petitioner and that others were not cross examined. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry has submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. In support of the charges, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and some of them were cross examined by the petitioner and that others were not cross examined. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry has submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. As stated earlier, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal which is subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 3. Mr.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised three contentions: 1. that during the course of enquiry, the material objects which were seized i.e., currency notes as well as the Mobile phone were not produced 2. that the presenting officer/ the prosecutor and the Judge are one and the same. Hence it is opposed to principles of natural justice. 3. that the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the respondent have not supported the case. Hence the entire enquiry is vitiated and the extreme penalty of dismissal was not at all warranted. 4. Mr.Papegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the entire procedure commencing from the enquiry till the order was passed by the revisional authority. He submits that under the circulars issued by the Central Government, there is no impediment under the Rules to appoint a presenting officer as well as the enquiry officer in a dual capacity. In that regard he relies on a circular and compilation issued by the Central Government. He further submits that during the course of enquiry, the respondents had produced the material objects in the form of photographs. Hence he submits that it satisfies the requirement of Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules. He further submits that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses as well as to lead evidence. He however, has not chosen to do so. Hence at this point of time, he cannot turn round and submit that there is violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties only two questions would arise for consideration: 1 whether there is any violation of Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules and 2. whether it would account to violation of principles of natural justice when the prosecutor/presenting officer and the Judge are one and the same. 6. 5. Having regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties only two questions would arise for consideration: 1 whether there is any violation of Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules and 2. whether it would account to violation of principles of natural justice when the prosecutor/presenting officer and the Judge are one and the same. 6. Insofar as the first question regarding violation of Rule 27(c)(3) is concerned, it is required to be noticed that Rule 27 would deal with the procedure for awarding of the punishment. Rule 27(c) would specifically lay down the procedure as to how the departmental enquiry is required to be conducted. Indeed Sub-Rule (c)(1) would state that the substance of the accusation shall be reduced in the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible and it shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it be given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry. Sub-Rule (c) (2) would state that at the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of `Guilty' or `Not Guilty' after which evidence necessary to establish that charge shall be let in and the evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary; if oral, it shall be direct; it shall be recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry himself and in the presence of the delinquent and the accused/delinquent shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. Sub-Rule (c)(3) would be more relevant for our purpose, inasmuch as, that was the one which was pressed into service i.e., the relevant document which is relied in support of the charge shall be put in evidence as exhibit and the delinquent shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits. Sub-Rule (c)(3) of Rule 27 reads as under: "When documents are relied upon in support of the Charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits." 7. During the course of hearing the respondents have made available the records and also the evidence adduced by the respondents during the course of enquiry. During the course of hearing the respondents have made available the records and also the evidence adduced by the respondents during the course of enquiry. Indeed, it is to be noticed that nowhere during the course of evidence by the respondents, the material objects have been produced. P.W1 is examined. A perusal of the evidence of P.W1 does not indicate that the said material objects which are in the nature of currency notes and Mobile phone have been marked so also in the evidence of P.W2. A perusal of the evidence adduced through the prosecution witnesses does not disclose that the material which was seized from the petitioner was produced during the course of trial. In fact, in this regard the evidence of P.W3, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-J would disclose that a specific question was put as to where are the seized articles kept presently? The answer was they are kept in the treasury box of first wing and the enquiry officer can see them physically. 8. Indeed what is essential under Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules is that all the material objects which are essential/necessary to drive home the guilt of the delinquent are required to be made available to him and also to the enquiry officer. But however, a perusal of the entire records does not disclose that such an exercise has been done. Indeed, certain photographs are marked as material objects during the course of enquiry. But to my mind, that will not satisfy the requirement of Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules. Indeed, the purpose of making available the material objects during the course of enquiry to the delinquent as well as to the enquiry officer is to satisfy themselves that these are the material objects which were seized from the delinquent. Indeed, it is only thereafter a finding can be recorded on the basis of the evidence which is let in and the prosecution witness would speak to the seizure of the currency notes and other valuables from the delinquent. Indeed, the said rule is not directory but it is certainly mandatory, inasmuch as, it would read that the documents which are relied in support of the charge shall be put in evidence as exhibits which would necessarily mean that that must be a part of the enquiry before fixing the charge on the petitioner. Indeed, the said rule is not directory but it is certainly mandatory, inasmuch as, it would read that the documents which are relied in support of the charge shall be put in evidence as exhibits which would necessarily mean that that must be a part of the enquiry before fixing the charge on the petitioner. Hence, I am of the view that the enquiry officer has failed to follow scrupulously the rule relating to exhibiting the material objects as contemplated under Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules. 9. This takes us to the next question as to indeed whether the enquiry officer can act in a dual capacity, inasmuch as, he can be an enquiry officer as well as the presenting officer/prosecutor. Indeed, the law on the subject has been that in some cases, certainly there should not be any impediment if the presenting officer and the enquiry officer are one and the same but however, the differentiating factor would be whether the enquiry officer while conducting the enquiry and while putting questions could act as a prosecutor and a presenting officer which would dilute his authority as a enquiry officer. Indeed, an enquiry officer shall not act as a prosecutor and cross examine the delinquent as well as his witness in which case he would have switched his role from that of a Judge to that of a prosecutor which is impermissible. In this background one is required to examine whether the enquiry officer has acted in a manner which is required in a case of this nature. Indeed, what is required is that the delinquent must feel comfortable that the enquiry is fair and just and the enquiry officer or the Judge has acted in all fairness. 10. Indeed Mr.Papegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on a booklet on departmental enquiry which is compiled by certain officials of the CRPF. This compilation can not substitute Rules or Regulations but they can be termed only as instructive in nature. Instruction No.10.8(13) would state that the enquiry officer has somewhat a dual role to perform, inasmuch as, he is supposed to bring out prosecution documents as well, besides examining the fairness and strength of the evidences. He sits in the chair of prosecution as well as that of a judge. Instruction No.10.8(13) would state that the enquiry officer has somewhat a dual role to perform, inasmuch as, he is supposed to bring out prosecution documents as well, besides examining the fairness and strength of the evidences. He sits in the chair of prosecution as well as that of a judge. Indeed this particular norm is opposed to all cannons of law, much so, relating to principles of natural justice. In fact, the said instructions would contradict themselves. Instruction 10.5.3(1) would relate to do's and don'ts for an enquiry officer. It is stated that the leading question should not be allowed in examination in chief and reexamination which may be allowed after the cross examination. It also speaks that he should be fair, just, judicious and unbiased. He should be interested in justice and fair-play. He has to hear both sides and give just and reasonable opportunity to present their case. It also speaks that the enquiry officer must have an open mind and he should be not connected in any way with the subject matter of the enquiry. 10.5.3 (iii) states the enquiry officer is not a prosecutor. It is not the duty of the enquiry officer to somehow prove the charges. He has not only to do justice but he has to demonstrate that justice is being done. 11. A perusal of these guidelines would clearly indicate that a Judge / enquiry officer cannot be permitted to act as a presenting officer/ a prosecution officer. 12. Keeping this in mind, one is required to see whether the enquiry officer has exceeded his brief and stepped into the shoes of a prosecutor/presenting officer. Indeed a perusal of the evidence would clearly disclose that the enquiry officer has exceeded his brief, inasmuch as, he has put leading questions to the witnesses so as to elicit answers. One such question while examining P.W 1 is the mobile which was seized belonged to whom? Answer to this is the Mobile belonged to RT No.041741529, Triveni Kumar Singh. While examining P.W3 the question is what is the security system for preventing theft in the Hoysala Barracks. Answer to this question is one RP is detailed daily who walks up and down Hoysala barracks board besides supervising cleaning of barracks. Another question to P.W3 is what is system of visitors to meet recruit and your unit personnel? Answer to this question need not be reproduced. Answer to this question is one RP is detailed daily who walks up and down Hoysala barracks board besides supervising cleaning of barracks. Another question to P.W3 is what is system of visitors to meet recruit and your unit personnel? Answer to this question need not be reproduced. What is significant is that the question which is put is leading in nature. 13. This takes us to the role of enquiry officer while examining the delinquent himself. The records would disclose that the delinquent was examined on 08.01.2005 at 12 hours. The first question which is put to him by the enquiry officer is `prosecution witnesses in their statements have stated that you had committed theft in Hoysala Barracks, do you plead guilty to charge?' Answer to this question is `No, Sir, I did not commit theft in Hoysala barracks.' The petitioner was subsequently examined on 02.02.2005, which would once again indicate that it is in the nature of a cross examination. Though a contention could be taken that it is in the nature of a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but however what is significant is that the enquiry officer in his capacity as a Judge has transgressed his limit and has stepped into the shoes of a prosecutor/ presenting officer. Indeed, it is to be noticed that such a course is certainly not open to the enquiry officer to act in dual capacity. 14. An enquiry into the charges against the delinquent in a domestic enquiry and into the conduct must necessarily be in conformity with the rules of fair-play. It is to be noticed that when the officer holding the enquiry takes a different role from that of a person who has to adjudicate on the dispute impartially and without bias, it can no longer be said that the result of the enquiry is fair. In these circumstances, the Courts are called upon to interfere on the ground that there has not been a fair deal against whom the enquiry is held. It is not that a person who faces the charge should not be asked any questions by the enquiry officer. Normally such statement is taken after the closure of the evidence. But it may be that in some circumstances, even if it is taken earlier, it cannot vitiate the enquiry. It is not that a person who faces the charge should not be asked any questions by the enquiry officer. Normally such statement is taken after the closure of the evidence. But it may be that in some circumstances, even if it is taken earlier, it cannot vitiate the enquiry. If an attempt is made by an enquiry officer to make the accused to explain the case against him and to elucidate certain material out of him so that the charge which is otherwise unsubstantiated is proved, the enquiry is certainly vitiated. In the case on hand, it is to be noticed that during the course of enquiry, certain leading questions are put and the questions are of such a nature where the evidence was lacking and the same is to be supplanted by putting those leading questions. Indeed, in a domestic enquiry non-appointment of a presenting officer certainly in some cases would not vitiate the enquiry as stated earlier, but however, if leading questions are put by the enquiry officer, the enquiry certainly is not fair and is in violation of principles of natural justice. 15. As to in what circumstance, the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and rule of bias, examples are already given extracting certain portion of the evidence. Indeed, it is no doubt true that an enquiry can be conducted without a presenting officer but such an enquiry will become invalid if the enquiry officer functions also as a presenting officer and cross examine the witness. 16. This takes us to another contention which is urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the delinquent being a cadet/constable was not given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witness. This contention cannot be accepted since it is found that after the witnesses were examined, an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine but however he has declined to do so. But the fact that the petitioner has chosen not to cross examine the prosecution witnesses would not necessarily satisfy the requirement of Rule 27(c)(3) of the Rules and also cannot be termed that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and rule of bias has been adhered to. 17. This takes us to the question of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority. 17. This takes us to the question of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority. When an employee by reason of an alleged act of misconduct is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedure laid down under the sub-rules are required to be strictly followed. If the statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or pass an order without application of mind then judicial review would be permissible. Once it is held that the entire enquiry commencing from the recording of statements is vitiated for more than one reason, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority is liable to be quashed. Petition is allowed. The orders passed by the enquiry officer/ disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority are quashed. The petitioner was handed out the order of dismissal on 31.03.2005. The petitioner shall be reinstated to his original post but however without any backwages. Continuity of service is only for terminal benefits. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed from the stage of recording of evidence or even from the stage of appointment of presenting officer if they choose to. Rule is issued and made absolute.