2008 Supreme(SC) 666

2008(3) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Cantonment Executive Officer & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Vijay D. Wani & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 18 of 2007
Decided on : 16.04.2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Once the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty; they cannot sit in the judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them.

Headnote:Service Law – Dismissal of services of Respondent Sectional Engineer (Electrical) by Pune Cantonment Board on charges of misconduct-Challenge thereagainst by Respondent on ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice in as much as all three members of Enquiry Committee participated in Board meeting and voted in support of their Enquiry report and held the respondent guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from service and that vitiated decision making process as all three members of Enquiry Committee being part of decision making process were interested to see that their report be upheld by Committee – Held a person cannot be a Judge in his own case – Once the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty; they cannot sit in the judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them – Instantly, so far as members of committee who conducted a disciplinary inquiry were also members of Cantonment Board where report was to be considered, decided and whether to accept it or not & finding the respondent guilty or not – The very fact that these three persons who conducted inquiry were also members of Board and that Board was to take a decision in matter whether report submitted by Enquiry Committee should be accepted or not – Hence, participation of these three members in committee had given a real apprehension in mind of respondent that he would not get a fair justice in matter because of three members who submitted report would be interested to see that their report should be accepted – This bias could not be said to be unreal – It was very much real and substantial one that respondent was not likely to get a fair deal by such disciplinary committee – Appeal having no merit, dismissed. (Paras 5, 7)

        Service law – Back wages – Grant of – So far as grant of back wages is concerned, it depends upon case to case-Instantly respondent was found guilty by Cantonment Board but order of Cantonment Board was set aside because it suffered from bias – Hence held unfair to deny 50% back wages to respondent – Division Bench decided matter on 10.11. 2005 -Since now more than 16 years had lapsed – Held not fair to permit respondent to proceed afresh in matter – Direction given for reinstatement of respondent with benefit of 50% back wages and continuity of service. (Para 9, 10)

        Principle of apprehension of a Bias – The question of a bias is always the question of fact – The courts have to be vigilant while applying the Principles of bias as it primarily depends on the facts of each case – The court should only act on real bias and not merely on likelihood of bias. (Para 5)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Respondent Sectional Engineer (Electrical) herein in the instant case was dismissed from services by Pune Cantonment Board on charges of misconduct. Said order was challenged by Respondent on ground that there was violation of principles of natural justice in as much as all three members of Enquiry Committee participated in Board meeting and voted in support of their Enquiry report and held the respondent guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from service and that vitiated decision making process as all three members of Enquiry Committee being part of decision making process were interested to see that their report be upheld by Committee.

       Findings of the Court :

        So far as members of committee who conducted a disciplinary inquiry were also members of Cantonment Board where report was to be considered, decided and whether to accept it or not & finding the respondent guilty or not. The very fact that these three persons who conducted inquiry were also members of Board and that Board was to take a decision in matter whether report submitted by Enquiry Committee should be accepted or not. Hence, participation of these three members in committee had given a real apprehension in mind of respondent that he would not get a fair justice in matter because of three members who submitted report would be interested to see that their report should be accepted. This bias could not be said to be unreal .It was very much real and substantial one that respondent was not likely to get a fair deal by such disciplinary committee. Appeal having no merit, was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.