Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.M.Lodha and Ghanshyam Prasad JJ.
Surendra Prasad Choudhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Letters Patent Appeal No. 382 of 2008 ;
Decided On : JULY 10, 2008
Bias - Enquiry Officer - The court found that the mere fact that the enquiry officer was a prosecution witness in another departmental proceeding pending against the appellant did not establish bias in the present disciplinary proceeding. The court emphasized the lack of material showing bias and the absence of any indication of prejudice caused to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant alleged bias of the enquiry officer due to his role as a prosecution witness in another departmental proceeding pending against the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's contention of bias was not justified and upheld the order passed by the Single Judge.
Issues: Alleged bias of the enquiry officer, non-payment of subsistence allowance
Ratio Decidendi: Mere status of the enquiry officer as a prosecution witness in another proceeding does not establish bias in the present disciplinary proceeding without additional evidence of bias or prejudice caused to the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order passed by the Single Judge was upheld.
1. We heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The counsel for the appellant urged that the enquiry officer was biased as he himself was a prosecution witness in the departmental proceedings.
3. The contention does not deserve to be accepted for more than one reason. For one, it is seen that the enquiry officer was a prosecution witness in another departmental proceeding pending against the appellant and not the present disciplinary proceeding. Merely because the enquiry officer was a prosecution witness in another departmental proceeding, on that basis alone, it cannot be held that the enquiry officer was biased. For two, and more importantly, there is no material at all that otherwise shows bias of the enquiry officer. Even otherwise there is nothing to indicate that any prejudice was caused to the appellant.
4. We are, thus, satisfied that the order passed by the Single Judge does not call for any interference.
5. As regards the appellants grievance about non-payment of subsistence allowance, the Single Judge has already passed an appropriate order.
6. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine.
AI
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
