Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1993 (5) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Bias in Disciplinary Proceedings 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice 3. Procedural Fairness and Right to Inspection 4. Waiver of Bias Plea in Subsequent Proceedings Summary: 1. Bias in Disciplinary Proceedings: The appellant, a Principal, was suspended and faced 12 charges, including Charge No. 12, which alleged misuse of funds. The enquiry committee included Shri Maru Ram, who was both a witness and a member of the committee. The appellant objected to Maru Ram's inclusion due to bias, but the objection was overruled. The Supreme Court found that Maru Ram's dual role violated the principle of "Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" (No man shall be a judge in his own cause), leading to a biased enquiry process. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice, foundational in administrative law, were violated. The enquiry was deemed unfair as Maru Ram, who had a predisposition against the appellant, participated both as a witness and a judge. The Court cited previous rulings, including A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, to underscore that natural justice applies to administrative actions involving civil consequences. 3. Procedural Fairness and Right to Inspection: The appellant was denied inspection of relevant documents needed to make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner. The Court noted that this denial further compromised the fairness of the proceedings, as the appellant could not effectively defend himself. 4. Waiver of Bias Plea in Subsequent Proceedings: The Division Bench had dismissed the plea of bias on the grounds that it was not specifically raised before the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner. However, the Supreme Court held that issues going to the root of the matter, based on admitted facts, can be raised at any stage. The Court found that the bias of Maru Ram pervaded the entire enquiry, thus vitiating the proceedings. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and the appellant's dismissal. The Managing Committee was permitted to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings, ensuring a new, unbiased enquiry committee. The Court directed partial back wages to be paid to the appellant and emphasized the need for procedural fairness in administrative actions.
|