JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 13-07-2023, whereby the writ petition bearing WPS No.3640 of 2010, filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) seeking quashment of the termination order passed by Respondent No. 3 to 5 i.e. order of termination dated 29.09.2007 (Annexure P/1 to WPS); interdepartmental appellate order dated 17/04/2008 (Annexure P/5 to WPS ); and further the revisional order dated 29/10/2008 (Annexure P/7 to WPS ), has been dismissed and confirmed the orders passed by the respondent authorities in respect of punishment of dismissal from service. 2. The appellant/petitioner was working as CT/GD (Constable), CRPF at Naxal Prone Area of Cherapally, Bijapur, C.G. The charges imputed that the appellant without obtaining prior approval from the higher officials, left the camp and subsequently when he was being asked to explain, he entered into the room of his senior namely Shri L.R. Meena, Assistant Commandant, CE-E/138. Thereafter, abused him; and also loaded the barrel of his Rifle with ammunition and put it on chest of Shri. L.R. Meena, Assistant Commandant and tried to fire upon him. Thereby the appellant committed gross misconduct. After the article of charges were given, he was subjected to Departmental Inquiry. In the Departmental Inquiry, the Inquiry Officer (I.O.) after evaluating all the statements found the misconduct to be proved, on which the Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the appellant, which led to filing of the writ petition bearing WPS No.3640 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by order dated 13/07/2023. Thus, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1949') and the rules made thereunder namely the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1995') though do not contemplate appointment of a Presenting Officer (P.O.) but the Inquiry Officer cannot act as a Presenting Officer as a Prosecutor. He would further submit that the statement and the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer would show that leading questions were asked with prejudicial mind, therefore, the rules of natural justice were defeated as the role of the Inquiry Officer was not discharged without bias. He would further submit that the statement and the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer would show that leading questions were asked with prejudicial mind, therefore, the rules of natural justice were defeated as the role of the Inquiry Officer was not discharged without bias. He would further submit that the learned Single Bench has failed to consider those aspects and instead has adjudicated the issue on the ground that the Court will not sit as an appellate authority over the finding recorded by the I.O. Therefore, the very genesis of the issue which led to such finding being biased cannot be sustained. He placed his reliance in the matter of Union of India and others Versus Ram Lakhan Sharma { (2018) 7 SCC 670 }. 4. Per contra, learned Dy. Solicitor General for the Union of India would submit that the order of learned Single Bench is well merited which do not call for any interference. He would further submit that the ground which has been urged in the writ appeal was not raised either before the appellate authority of the department or in the writ petition, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to answer it. Consequently, having not raised the ground, the case of the appellant cannot be considered on a new ground which was not raised before the writ court and as such, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 6. The learned Single Bench has followed the dictum laid down in the case of Union of India & others Versus Bodupalli Gopalaswami { (2011) 13 SCC 553 }, Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 and Union of India & others Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar (2023) 3 SCC 622 to come to a finding that the courts will not act as an appellate court and re-assess the evidence led in the domestic Inquiry. There is no dispute about such proposition. 7. The service of appellant/petitioner, who was working as a constable in the CRPF is governed by the provisions of the Act, 1949 and the Rules, 1955 made in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Act, 1949, as such, has a statutory effect. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1955 reads as under:- 27. 7. The service of appellant/petitioner, who was working as a constable in the CRPF is governed by the provisions of the Act, 1949 and the Rules, 1955 made in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Act, 1949, as such, has a statutory effect. Rule 27 of the Rules, 1955 reads as under:- 27. Procedure for the Award of Punishments.- (c) The procedure for conducting a departmental Inquiry shall be as follows:—(1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the Inquiry. (2) At the commencement of the Inquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral; (i) it shall be direct; (ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the Inquiry himself in the presence of the accused; (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses. (3) 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. (4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the Inquiry. If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads “Not guilty”, he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting Inquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the Inquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the Inquiry on the expiry of the period allowed. (5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the Inquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the Inquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. (6) If the Commandant has himself held the Inquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the Inquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the Inquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so. 8. Perusal of the aforesaid rules do not contemplate the appointment of the Presenting Officer apart from the Inquiry Officer. As such, whether in absence of the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry conducted by the I.O. can be evaluated as to whether has acted with bias or not. It is a settled proposition that the disciplinary proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and the inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is obliged to act fairly and impartially. Therefore, the authority who exercises quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised a ground that the order issued by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the law, which takes into sweep the outcome of departmental proceeding, which resulted into termination. Therefore, the authority who exercises quasi-judicial power has to act in good faith without bias, in a fair and impartial manner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised a ground that the order issued by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the law, which takes into sweep the outcome of departmental proceeding, which resulted into termination. Consequently, we are of the view that if the bias or prejudice can be sensed from the conduct of the I.O., the Court can step in to hold it illegal and the said proposition has further been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra). 9. With such principle we would like to bring the lens back to the Inquiry proceedings which have been placed before us. In the Inquiry proceedings L.R. Meena, the complainant was examined and cross-examined. Another witness Arvind Kumar, who was examined as Departmental Witness No.2, after his examination-in-chief, the I.O. put him certain question, which would be relevant are reproduced hereinbelow:- loky %& D;k flikgh lru dqekj nqcs us dEiuh dekaMj ds dk;kZy; esa tkdj Jh ygjh jke eh.kk l0 d0 dh rjQ jk;Qy rku dj ekjus dh dksf'k'k fd;k FkkA loky %& D;k flikgh lru dqekj nqcs ds dSEi ls xSjgkftj gksus ds ckjs esa daiuh dekaMj Jh ygjh jke eh.kk l0 d0 us vkils tokc ryc fd;k Fkk \ 10. Likewise, one witness Radhe Shayam Khan, after his examination following questions were put to him by the I.O., which appears to us to be the leading questions are reproduced herein below:- iz0 %& lru dqekj nqcs us tc gfFk;kj dkd djds daiuh dekaMj ij rkuk Fkk] rks mleas eSXthu yxk FkkA iz0 %& dkSu&lk gfFk;kj lru dqekj nqcs ds ikl FkkA iz0 %& D;k flikgh lru dqekj nqcs ds gfFk;kj dks [kkyh djus ds nkSjku xksyh pSEcj ls ckgj vkbZ FkhA 11. Another witness namely H.K. Sandhi Bigrah, the examination of the statement do not show that any leading question was put to him by the I.O. Whereas the other witness Shankar Sinha (PW-4) after his examination, the I.O. put him certain questions, which appears to be leading which are reproduced herein below:- iz0 %& flikgh lru dqekj nqcs us tc gfFk;kj daiuh dekaMj Jh ygjh jke eh.kk l0 d0 ij rkuk Fkk] rks mleas eSXthu yxk FkkA iz0 %& dkSu&lk gfFk;kj lru dqekj nqcs ds ikl FkkA iz0 %& D;k flikgh lru dqekj nqcs dk gfFk;kj [kkyh djus ds nkSjku xksyh pSEcj ls ckgj vk;k FkkA 12. Likewise the statement of Swapan Mandal, who was the another departmental witness, the I.O. asked him certain questions which also appears to be leading one are reporduced herein below:- iz0 % D;k vikdks ekywe gS] fd fl0 lru dqekj nqcs dks dkSu lk gfFk;kj o fdl rkjh[k dks bZ'wk fd;k x;k Fkk \ iz0 % vki dksV dekaMj dh M~;wVh ds vfrfjDr vkSj D;k M~;wVh dj jgs FksA iz0 % D;k fl0 lru dqekj nqcs M~;wVh ds nkSjku dSEi ls ckgj x;k FkkA 13. In the question put to Arvind Kumar by the I.O., the word added that whether Satan Kumar Dubey, the appellant, tried to kill L.R. Meena, which was never stated in the examination-in-chief would be a leading question. The other questions that whether Satan Kumar Dubey was absent from the camp; whether L.R. Meena made an Inquiry from him also was leading one, as it leads to put the answer to the mouth of the witness. Likewise, in the statement of Radhe Shayam the specific leading question was put that when the weapon was aimed at Company Commander, the Magzine was fixed in it, it was never stated in the chief. Thereafter, the question whether the bullets came out of the chamber was also a leading question and the statement of Shankar Sinha, the question that when the weapon was aimed at L.R. Meena by Satan Kumar Dubey the Magzine was fixed in it, it was answered in affirmative and question put to Swapan Mandal by I.O. as to when the arms were issued to Satan Kumar Dubey and what duty he was additionally performing apart from the duty of Court Commander and whether Satan Kumar Dubey went out of the camp were also leading questions. 14. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) has reiterated the law laid down in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha { (2010) 2 SCC 772 } wherein this proposition was laid down that the Inquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as an independent adjudicator and he is not a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. In para 27 of Ram Lakhan Sharma (supra) the Court has reproduced the principles laid down which are quoted herein below:- 27. In State of U.P. V. Saroj Kumar Sinha 2010 (2) SCC 772 , this Court had laid down that inquiry officer is a quasi-judicial authority, he has to act as independent adjudicator and he is not a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. In paragraphs 28 and 30 following has been held: “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/ Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 30. When a departmental Inquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The Inquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 15. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 15. Further the principles which has been laid down that when the statutory rules do not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer, the non-appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto will not vitiate the inquiry but the principles of natural justice was given a preference if it is held to be violated then the Court can interfere as the I.O. cannot act as the prosecutor. Para 28 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 28. When the statutory rule does not contemplate appointment of Presenting Officer whether non-appointment of Presenting Officer ipso facto vitiates the inquiry? We have noticed the statutory provision of Rule 27 which does not indicate that there is any statutory requirement of appointment of Presenting Officer in the disciplinary inquiry. It is thus clear that statutory provision does not mandate appointment of Presenting Officer. When the statutory provision does not require appointment of Presenting Officer whether there can be any circumstances where principles of natural justice can be held to be violated is the broad question which needs to be answered in this case. We have noticed above that the High Court found breach of principles of natural justice in Inquiry Officer acting as the prosecutor against the respondents. The Inquiry Officer who has to be independent and not representative of the disciplinary authority if starts acting in any other capacity and proceed to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, the principle of bias comes into place. 16. The submission of the Union of India that such grounds were not urged during the appeal and disciplinary Inquiry cannot hold the sway, inasmuch as, the rules of natural justice if are not followed and when the I.O. act as a Prosecutor, it would lead to shake the very foundation of departmental enquiry and conduct of I.O. would be contrary to general expectation. The I.O. when steps into the shoes of prosecutor by putting leading questions it would amount to ambition expressed then Court can step in for effective review & reconsiderations. 17. The I.O. when steps into the shoes of prosecutor by putting leading questions it would amount to ambition expressed then Court can step in for effective review & reconsiderations. 17. Accordingly, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Bench. Consequently, the writ petition also stands allowed and the order of termination dated 29.09.2007 (Annexure P/1); interdepartmental appellate order dated 17/04/2008 (Annexure P/5); and the revisional order dated 29/10/2008 (Annexure P/7) are quashed. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty, if so advised, to hold the de novo Inquiry in the matter with appointment of fresh I.O., in accordance with law.