SALAM KESHO SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents.

(2.) There is no dispute in respect of the following essential facts:

(3.) This appeal has been filed challenging the legality of the judgment and Order of the Learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2009, on various grounds. Mr. A. Romenkumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-writ Petitioner submits that though the Appellant-writ Petitioner raised the issues of non-appointment of any presenting officer in the enquiry and as such of vitiating the said inquiry, the Learned Single Judge did not consider the issues. On the other hand, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior Govt. Advocate submits that the said issues have been raised for the first time in this appeal. On perusal of the pleadings of the writ Petitioner-Appellant, we have ascertained that there was an allegation about "the Enquiry Officer taking the role of the Presenting Officer, i.e. the role of a Judge as well as a Prosecutor". Though the said wordings are not happy, we are of the opinion that the said pleadings of the writ Petitioner-Appellant are to the effect that no Presenting Officer was appointed in the said equiry. Even assuming that the said issue of non-appointment of Presenting Officer in the enquiry has been raised for the first time, for the said issue of law, examination of evidence or investigation of the facts is not required.