Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY
B.Raja Gopal - Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-14-95
NATURAL JUSTICE - BIAS - ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - BIAS - RULE AGAINST BIAS - PERSONAL BIAS - WAIVER OF BIAS - ENQUIRY OFFICER - RANK - DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - BIAS SYNDROME - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Clerk with 15 years of clean service, sought exemption from beautification work due to health issues. The General Manager (1st respondent) issued a charge sheet alleging misbehavior and insubordination. An enquiry was conducted, and a show-cause notice for dismissal was issued. The petitioner challenged the proceedings as illegal and arbitrary, alleging bias and violation of natural justice principles.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the entire proceedings were vitiated by bias. The 1st respondent, who was the complainant, also framed the charge sheet, appointed the Enquiry Officer, and issued the show-cause notice. This violated the principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own case). The Enquiry Officer was also much junior in rank to the 1st respondent, which further raised concerns of bias.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge sheet issued by the General Manager and consequential enquiry proceedings, including the show-cause notice of dismissal, are hit by principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the action of the General Manager (1st respondent) is vitiated by personal bias? 3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable against the show-cause notice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias, apply to administrative actions that affect the rights of individuals. 2. Personal bias arises from a relationship between the deciding authority and the parties that inclines the authority unfavorably or otherwise towards one party. 3. The plea of bias can be raised even if not specifically raised before subordinate tribunals or administrative bodies, provided it goes to the root of the matter and is based on admitted and uncontroverted facts. 4. The Enquiry Officer should be of the same rank or superior to the complainant-officer to avoid bias. However, exceptions may apply under the Doctrine of Necessity. 5. A writ petition can be entertained at the stage of a show-cause notice if the proceedings are inherently biased and further proceedings would only prolong humiliation and harassment.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned enquiry proceedings and show-cause notice as illegal and arbitrary due to bias. However, the respondents were not precluded from initiating fresh proceedings by an appropriate higher authority from the stage of charge sheet.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is assailing the enquiry proceedings initiated through charge- sheet dated 16-8-1994 as illegal and arbitrary.
( 2 ) THE Petitioner has been working as Clerk under the Respondents for the last 15 years. He has been maintaining clean record.
( 3 ) IN a bid to beautify the environment, the 1st respondent issued Circular dt. 12-8-1994 directing all the employees to work at various places. The petitioner in view of his health condition sought for exemption as he cannot perform manual work. The 1st respondent called the petitioner and shouted against him. On 16-8-1994, the charge-sheet was issued by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioner mis-behaved with the 1st respondent and that it amounts to mis-conduct of insubordination and dis-obedience of the orders, under the certified standing Orders of the Company. The petitioner denied the charges. Thereupon, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer on 22-8-1994. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and now the show-cause notice dated 7-8-1995 was issued proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service. At this juncture the petitioner approached this court for necessary to relief.
( 4 ) THE petitioner also submits that subsequent to the issuance of the charge sheet, he was issued with a notice on 14-6-1995 alleging that the daughter of the petitioner crossed the colony fencing; that it is trespass and that the petitioner should vacate the quarters. The supply of power and water was also disconnected to the quarter. Thus he says that he is being victimised and subjected to unfair labour practice by the management.
( 5 ) THE Petitioner submits that the entire proceedings are illegal and vitiated by bias. The 1st Respondent himself is the person aggrieved and he framed charge-sheet, appointed Enquiry officer and issued the present show-cause notice. Therefore, all his actions are in gross violation of principles of natural justice that no man shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo Judex in causa sua ).
( 6 ) THIS court while admitting the Writ Petition granted interim stay on 21-8-1995.
( 7 ) COUNTER affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the Writ Petition is not maintainable at the stage of show-cause notice. On 13-8-1994 the petitioner entered the chambers of the 1st respondent and argued in loud voice and did not participate in beautifying programme. On 15-8-1995 the petitioner passed remarks at the 1st respondent from the dias. Tnere fore,acharge-sheet was issued and detailed enquiry was conducted. Finally the charges having been proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is proposed to be inflicted now.
( 8 ) THE petitioner was issued with thecharge- sheet by the 1st respondent on 16-8-94. The relevant extract is reproduced below:"the Management had displayed a circular vide reference No. NS/sdmr/est/4040 dt. 12-08-1994 wherein the employees were asked to participate in beautifying the environment of factory and campus and carry out the work entrusted to them during working hours. In spite of that circular you have submitted are presentation dt, 13-08-1994 stating that you may be exempted from beautifying programme on health grounds. On 13-08-1994 at about 10-30 AM during the course of discussion on this matter with the undersigned you have argued with a loud voice in the chambers of general Manager where the Sr. Manager (Engg) and Jr. Manager (Accounts) were also present. Further on 15-08-^4 on the occasion of flag hoisting at about 7-30 AM you have addressed the employees, staff and officers who were present at that time and passed unwarranted derogatory remarks about the incident occurred on 13-08-94 and persisted the action of the Management wilfully on the open dias and thereby the employees were instigated and entered into a wordy deal. Yesterday being the Independency day you ought to have talked on the dias about the matters relating to Independence day only. But you have uttered some unconnected
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
