2012 (9) TMI 1135 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of order passed by the Disciplinary Authority - Appellant remitted back to the Disciplinary Committee - disciplinary proceedings as vitiated due to the participation of the Principal who was biased against the Appellant - Held that - The order passed by the Disciplinary Committee cannot be sustained on the short ground that Smt. Neera Sharma was a member of the aforesaid Disciplinary Committee. In our opinion she was clearly disqualified from participating in any deliberations of the Disciplinary Committee as she had appeared as Management Witness No. 2. It is well settled principle of law that no person can be a Judge in his own cause. Having supported the case of the management it was not appropriate for Smt. Neera Sharma to participate in the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee. When the appeal was being decided by the Disciplinary Committee with regard to the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority the decision of the Disciplinary Committee not only had to be fair but it also had to appear to be fair. This is in conformity with the principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. Actual and demonstrable fair play must be the hallmark of the proceedings and the decisions of the administrative and quasi judicial tribunals. In particular when the decisions taken by these bodies are likely to cause adverse civil consequences to the persons against whom such decisions are taken. For the aforesaid reasons the order dated 18th/19th December 2008 passed by the Disciplinary Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. It would be inappropriate at this stage to relegate the Appellant back to the Disciplinary Committee. In the interest of justice we permit the Appellant to challenge the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 8th January 2008 before Punjab School Education Tribunal Mohali. The appeal shall be filed by the Appellant within thirty days from today. Since the order of the Disciplinary Authority was passed on 8th January 2008 the appeal may well be beyond limitation period. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we direct that the appeal filed by the Appellant shall be decided by the aforesaid Education Tribunal on merits and the same shall not be rejected on the ground of limitation. If the appeal is filed by the Appellant within the period stipulated above the Education Tribunal shall take final decision thereon within a period of three months.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant.
2. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 against a private unaided educational institution.
3. Alleged bias in the Disciplinary Committee.
4. Appropriate forum for adjudication of the dispute.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Appellant:
The Appellant, an Administrative Officer at DAV Public School, was accused of misconduct by a colleague, leading to a warning letter and subsequent demotion and transfer without a hearing. Further complaints resulted in a charge-sheet and an inquiry, culminating in the Appellant's removal from service. The Appellant contended that the disciplinary process was flawed due to bias, particularly the involvement of the Principal, Smt. Neera Sharma, who participated as a witness and a member of the Disciplinary Committee. The Supreme Court held that the participation of Smt. Neera Sharma in the Disciplinary Committee violated the principle that "no person can be a Judge in his own cause," thus invalidating the Committee's decision.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226 Against a Private Unaided Educational Institution:
The Appellant argued that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 as the Respondent school performed public functions by providing education. The High Court initially dismissed the petition, stating that the school was not an instrumentality of the State and suggested a civil suit as an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court, referencing judgments in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Zee Telefilms Ltd., clarified that a writ petition is maintainable against private bodies performing public duties. Thus, the High Court's dismissal on this ground was incorrect.

3. Alleged Bias in the Disciplinary Committee:
The Appellant claimed that the disciplinary proceedings were biased due to the involvement of the Principal, who had a personal interest in the case. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Principal's dual role as a witness and a Disciplinary Committee member compromised the fairness of the proceedings. The Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but also appear to be done, and actual and demonstrable fair play must be the hallmark of administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.

4. Appropriate Forum for Adjudication of the Dispute:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court dismissed the writ petition partly due to the presence of disputed facts, suggesting that a civil suit would be more appropriate. However, the Supreme Court highlighted the establishment of the Punjab School Education Tribunal, which is empowered to hear appeals from unaided private educational institutions. The Court directed the Appellant to file an appeal with this Tribunal, ensuring that the appeal would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and would be decided on merits within three months.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. It quashed the Disciplinary Committee's decision due to the Principal's biased involvement and directed the Appellant to file an appeal with the Punjab School Education Tribunal. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the appeal on merits, without being influenced by the previous Disciplinary Committee's findings or the limitation period.