The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5304 of 2021 ---------- Surendra Pandey, son of late Hari Nandan Pandey, resident of Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. Khijri (Namkum), P.S. Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand Petitioner ……. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Department of Co- operative Societies, Engineer’s Hostel, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The District Audit Officer, Co-operative Societies, Department of Co-operative Societies, Engineer’s Hostel, Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The District Co-operative Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Kuchary Road, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Managing Director, JHASCOLAMF Ltd., Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 7. The Development Officer (Marketing), JHASCOLAMF Ltd., Purulia Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi. ……... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
18. In this connection, a reference was made to Delhi Financial Corpn. v. Rajiv Anand with regard to personal bias i.e. an officer of the statutory authority has been appointed as an Estate Officer, therefore, they will carry their personal bias. However, this Court in the aforesaid case held that the doctrine “no man can be a judge in his own cause” can be applied only to cases where the person concerned has a personal interest or has himself already done some act or taken a decision in the matter concerned. Merely because an officer of a corporation is named to be the authority, does not by into operation the doctrine, “no man can be a judge in his own cause”. For that doctrine to come into play it must be shown that the officer concerned has a personal bias or connection or a personal interest or has personally acted in the matter concerned and/or has already taken a decision one way or the other which he may be interested in supporting. itself bring The same view has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539 relevant paras of which reads as under: “26. This Court in A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat placed reliance upon the judgment in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana and held that no person should adjudicate a dispute which he or she has dealt with in any capacity. The failure this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the said person. Therefore, law requires that a person to observe 5 should not decide a case wherein he is interested. The question is not whether the person is actually biased but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the minds of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. 28. In Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India a Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with an identical case wherein an employee serving in the Northern Railway had been dismissed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent on a charge of misconduct which concerned himself, after considering by himself the explanation given by the employee against the charge and after thinking that the employee was not fit to be retained in service. It was also considered whether in such a case, the Court should deny the relief to the employee, even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order of punishment stood vitiated on the ground that the employee had been guilty of habitual acts of indiscipline/misconduct. This Court held that the order of dismissal passed against the employee stood vitiated as it was in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. The main thrust of the charges against the employee related the disciplinary authority itself, therefore, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to sit in judgment over the explanation furnished by the employee and decide against the delinquent. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true. Anyone who had a personal stake in an enquiry must have kept himself aloof from the enquiry. The Court further held that in such a case it could not be considered that the employee did not deserve any relief from the Court since he was habitually guilty of acts subversive of discipline. The illegality from which the order of dismissal passed by the authority concerned suffered was of a character so grave and fundamental that the alleged habitual misbehaviour of the delinquent employee could not cure or condone it. to his conduct qua 29. Thus, the legal position emerges that if a person appears as a witness in disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be an enquiry officer nor 6 can he pass the order of punishment as a disciplinary authority. This rule has been held to be sacred. An apprehension of bias operates as a disqualification for a person to act as adjudicator. No person can be a judge in his own cause and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true. Anyone who has personal the disciplinary proceedings must keep himself away from such proceedings. The violation of the principles of natural justice renders the order null and void.” interest in 9. There is no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that there cannot be re-appreciation of evidence by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since there was a specific direction to pass a fresh order but the same has not been done and the earlier order has been affirmed mechanically, interference is required in the same. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, the impugned order as contained in memo No. 169 dated 21.06.2021 (Annexure-28) is hereby quashed and set aside. Since petitioner has already retired, there cannot be any order for reinstatement. However, petitioner is entitled for other consequential benefits, in accordance with law, which shall be extended to him within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 11. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. kunal (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 7
Arguments
For the Petitioner : M/s. Prem Pujari Roy, Deepak Kr. Dubey, Ranjan Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, AC to SC(L&C)-II 12/ 26.09.2024 Heard the parties. ------ 2. 3. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo No. 169 dated 21.06.2021 (Annexure-28) by which the earlier order of dismissal has been affirmed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was appointed as Laboratory Assistant under respondents and after his appointment, he was discharging his duties sincerely and diligently. It is the case 1 of petitioner that on 08.03.2011, the then Managing Director, JHASCOLAMPF, Ranchi lodged an FIR before the Officer Incharge, Namkum Police Station, Ranchi against the petitioner and one Paras Nath Singh, Production Incharge for misappropriation of Seed Lac Products valued to the tune of Rs.78.00 lakhs by committing fraud and forgery. On the basis of written report, the Namkum Police registered/ lodged FIR as Namkum P.S. Case No. 50/2011, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. After lodging of the FIR, the Administrative Officer, JHASCOLAMPF, Ranchi by issuance of memo No. 276 dated 20.05.2011 directed the petitioner and Paras Nath Singh to submit show-cause in respect of charges leveled in the FIR and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply to show-cause on 23.05.2011. However, the Managing Director of respondent-Organization being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, vide order dated 24.05.2011 suspended the petitioner with immediate effect and during the suspension period, the petitioner was directed to give joining in the Head Quarter i.e. office of JHASCOLAMPF, Ranchi. 4. After issuance of said memo, the Prapatra ‘Ka’ was issued in respect to two charges and thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the District Co-operative Officer, Ranchi was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was directed to participate in the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the District Co-operative Officer vide letter dated 01.09.2012 submitted his report exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. However, the Managing Director being not satisfied with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, directed him to re-enquire but again the Enquiry Officer gave the same finding. Finally, the Managing Director being Disciplinary Authority not accepted the Enquiry Report of 2 respondent No. 5 and differing with the said report, appointed the respondent No. 7 as Enquiry Officer and directed him to conduct the departmental proceeding afresh against the petitioner. The newly appointed Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry afresh and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, 2nd show- cause was issued to him to which the petitioner replied denying the charges levelled against him. Subsequently, in the 18th meeting of Board of Directors dated 17.06.2014, approval for termination from service was given accordingly, petitioner was dismissed from the service vide order dated 05.07.2014. 5. Petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in W.P.(S). No. 4996 of 2014 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 11.01.2021 and after quashing the order of dismissal dated 05.07.2014, the matter was remanded back before the Disciplinary Authority for passing fresh order in accordance with law and after following the principle of natural justice. Thereafter, though the disciplinary authority passed fresh order dated 21.06.2021 but once again revived the earlier order dated 05.07.2014. Hence, aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier matter was remitted back to pass a fresh order after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law and following the provisions of natural justice, though the charge- sheet was issued by the Managing Director, it was the same person who enquire the matter and thereafter, Disciplinary Authority passed order affirming the earlier order of dismissal. Nothing has been brought on record to show that what was the material before the disciplinary authority to hold the petitioner guilty of charges and affirmed the order of dismissal. It has been submitted that in 3 the 1st round of departmental proceeding, petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and also in criminal case he has been acquitted. 7. Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that it is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere in the order of dismissal which has been passed following the procedure and principle of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that Disciplinary Authority has followed the direction of this Court and thereafter, passed the order and as such, there is no any illegality or infirmity in the order. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1617 and submits that their Lordships was of the view that the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution is not required to re-appreciate the evidences and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition should be dismissed without any interference. 8. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the case of petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: I) II) The direction of this Court has not been followed in true letter and spirit. It was open for the Disciplinary Authority to issue fresh show-cause notice and thereafter, by giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to pass reasoned order in accordance with law but the respondents have failed to do so. 4 III) The principle that no man can be a Judge in his own cause is one of the facets of the Principles of Natural Justice. “Nemo debt esse judex in propria sua causa.” The exposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Crawford Bayley & Co. and others vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC Page 25 as contained para 18 is being quoted hereunder: