The violation of the principles of natural justice due to bias of the disciplinary committee member rendered the entire disciplinary proceedings void.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2338/2002. The appellant had preferred the said writ petition to assail the order dated 28.08.2001 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal. The said tribunal had upheld the inquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority passed against the appellant imposing the penalty of removal from service.

2. The impugned judgment shows that two main grounds were urged by the appellant at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The first ground was that one Mrs. M. Varshney was a member of the disciplinary committee, which was responsible for adjudication of the charges qua the appellant and imposition of penalty on her in the departmental proceedings, and she had also appeared as a witness against the appellant in the same inquiry proceedings in respect of some of the charges. The appellant, therefore, alleged violation of the principles of natural justice on account of bias of the disciplinary committee against her. The second aspect alleged by the appellant in the writ proceedings was the violation of the principles of natural justice on account of non-supply of various documents during the course of inquiry proceedings.

3. The learned Single Judge rejected both the submissions of the appellant. So far as the first submission is concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that in all there were 26 charges levelled against the appellant and the said Mrs. M. Varshney had appeared as a witness against the appellant only in respect of 5 charges. Thus, the learned Single Judge concluded that even if the said 5 charges against the appellant are ignored or taken as ‘not proved’, the inquiry report and the disciplinary action against the appellant could not be faulted in respect of the other charges, which were also proved against the appellant. So far as the aspect of non-supply of documents was concerned, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellant was not able to establish the prejudice suffered by her on account of alleged non-supply of documents.

4. The submission of counsel for the appellant is that the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated in view of the fact that Mrs. M. Varshney was a member of the disciplinary committee. Learned counsel submits that Mrs. M. Varshney had appeared as a witness against the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings, not just in respect of five charges, but many more and, in any event, the fact that she appeared as a witness in respect of some of the charges shows that she had interest in establishing the guilt of the appellant. This being the position, she was, obviously, coloured in her opinion against the appellant and entertained a bias against the appellant. Learned counsel seeks to rely on the decision in Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and Others, AIR 1993 SC 2155, which had been relied upon by the appellant before the learned Single Judge as well.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sikri, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports the impugned judgment. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge was justified in bifurcating the charges in respect whereof Mrs. M. Varshney had appeared as a witness, and no infirmity could be found either in the inquiry report or in the action of the disciplinary committee in respect of the other charges, with which Mrs. M. Varshney had no concern.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the same cannot be sustained. With due respect to the learned Single Judge, we cannot agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The fact that Mrs. M. Varshney was a witness in respect of some of the charges against the appellant, clearly disabled her from having anything to do, with the taking of any decision, in relation to the same disciplinary proceedings against t