9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bias and malice. 2. Natural justice. Summary: Issue 1: Bias and Malice The Supreme Court examined the issue of bias and malice in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. The respondent alleged that the Managing Director acted with malice, citing several events: withdrawal of powers on 28th September 1993, issuance of a show-cause notice on 1st October 1993, appointment of an Inquiry Officer on 12th October 1993, and subsequent termination. The Court noted that the show-cause notice contained 13 allegations without documentary support, and the respondent's requests for documents were denied. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry without a Presenting Officer, without giving notice, and without fixing any date or time for the inquiry. The Court found that the entire process was conducted in a manner that indicated a state of mind pre-disposed to punish the respondent, thus proving bias and malice. The Court referred to the concept of bias as implying pre-disposition or prejudice and concluded that the Managing Director's actions were wholly and totally biased. Issue 2: Natural Justice The Court also addressed the issue of natural justice, emphasizing the doctrine's role in preventing miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case, as required by the principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice was served without providing necessary documents, and the inquiry was conducted without proper procedural safeguards. There was no charge sheet given, no oral evidence taken, no cross-examination allowed, and no proper hearing conducted. The Court found that the entire process was conducted in a manner that violated the principles of natural justice, resulting in a total miscarriage of justice. The High Court had set aside the dismissal order on these grounds, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the disciplinary proceedings were biased and violated the principles of natural justice. The judgment of the High Court, which had set aside the dismissal order, was upheld. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
