2010 Supreme(SC) 919

2010 (7) Supreme 970
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Mohd. Yunus Khan — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8349/2010
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19318/2007)
Decided on : 28-9-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
2. The legal maxim “nemo debet esse judex in propria causa” (no man shall be a judge in his own cause) is required to be observed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as non-observance thereof is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice
3. The existence of an element of bias renders the entire disciplinary proceedings void.
4. If a person appears as a witness in disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be an inquiry officer nor can he pass the order of punishment as a disciplinary authority.
5. It is desirable that the delinquent employee be informed by the disciplinary authority that his past conduct could be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment.

Headnote:Service Law- Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 14(1) – Order passed by Commandant imposing the punishment of termination from service on appellant ,Head Constable- Appeal against judgment and order passed by High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by appellant against the judgment and order of Tribunal, by which Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition filed by appellant and upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant from service by the Statutory Authorities- Instantly Commandant, 30th PAC Battalion, appeared as a witness and proved the disobedience of his orders of imposition of punishment, first as of punishment drill and subsequently of confinement to a cell- However, after appearing as a witness in the enquiry, he also passed order of punishment, i.e., dismissal of the appellant from service - This issue had been agitated by appellant throughout but none of the authorities or the courts below had taken it into consideration- Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against appellant and conclusion thereof by the imposition of the punishment by the Commandant, who had himself been a witness, was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, stood vitiated-Again, protest raised by the appellant against the punishment imposed for his absence could not give rise to a cause of action for initiating disciplinary proceedings- Courts below and the statutory authorities failed to appreciate that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally the charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least he should be informed of the same at the stage of the show cause notice, before imposing the punishment- Order of punishment held null and void-Appeal allowed (Paras 29 to 37)

        Disciplinary Proceedings- Violation of principles of natural justice - If a person appears as a witness in disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be an inquiry officer nor can he pass the order of punishment as a disciplinary authority- 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- Any one who has personal interest in the disciplinary proceedings must keep himself away from such proceedings- The violation of the principles of natural justice renders the order null and void (Para 28)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of Tribunal, by which the Tribunal dismissed Claim Petition filed by the appellant and upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant from service by the Statutory Authorities.

       Findings of the Court :

        Instantly Commandant, 30th PAC Battalion, appeared as a witness and proved the disobedience of his orders of imposition of punishment,first as of punishment drill and subsequently of confinement to a cell. However, after appearing as a witness in the enquiry, he also passed order of punishment, i.e., dismissal of the appellant from service . This issue had been agitated by appellant throughout but none of the authorities or the courts below had taken it into consideration. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against appellant and conclusion thereof by the imposition of the punishment by the Commandant, who had himself been a witness, was in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and thus, stood vitiated. Again, protest raised by the appellant against the punishment imposed for his absence could not give rise to a cause of action for initiating disciplinary proceedings. Courts below and the statutory authorities failed to appreciate that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally the charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least he should be informed of the same at the stage of the show cause notice, before imposing the punishment. Order of punishment was held null and void. Appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed