The judgment establishes the principle that bias must be proven with evidence and prompt action is necessary to address alleged bias incidents.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above and the submissions made, the Petitioner prays that the Hon'ble High Court may be graciously pleased to;

(i) issue notice to the Respondent University to show cause as to why the impugned Charge Sheet dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure: P-1); Order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure: P-1) appointing Respondent No.2 as the Inquiring Authority; and all enquiries after 10.11.2017 [Daily Order Sheets at Annexure: P-3 to Annexure: P-9] be not quashed and set aside by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction;

(ii) direct the Respondent to produce the relevant records pertaining to the present case at the time of hearing of the Petition;

(iii) upon return of the notice and after hearing the parties to the present proceeding and upon perusal of the relevant records, may be pleased to allow the present Writ Petition;

(iv) quash and set aside the Impugned Charge Sheet dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure P-1); Or, alternatively;

(v) quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 05.05.2017 appointing Respondent No. 2 as the Inquiring Authority (Annexure: P-2);

(vi) consequently, direct the Respondent University to appoint a Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries from the Central Vigilance Commission or a serving Officer from the Ministry of Human Resource Management of the Central Government as the Inquiring Authority;

(vii) quash and set aside the enquiries held by Respondent No. 2 as the Inquiring Authority and specifically quash and set aside the Daily Order Sheet dated 11.12.2017 of Respondent No. 2 [Annexure: P-3], the Daily Order Sheet dated 12.12.2017 [Annexure: P-4], the Daily Order Sheet dated 11.01.2018 [Annexure: P-5], the Daily Order Sheet dated 12.01.2018 [Annexure: P-6], the Daily Order Sheet dated 15.02.2018 [Annexure: P-7], the Daily Order Sheet dated 07.03.2018 [Annexure: P-8], the Daily Order Sheet dated 08.03.2018 [Annexure: P-9], the Daily Order Sheet dated 02.04.2018 [Annexure: P-10], the Daily Order Sheet dated 03.04.2018 [Annexure: P-11], the Daily Order Sheet dated 04.04.2018 [Annexure: P-12], the Daily Order Sheet dated 05.04.2018 [Annexure: P-13], and the Dally Order Sheet dated 23.04.2018 [Annexure: P-14];

(viii) consequently, direct the Respondent University to hold the enquiry de novo;

(ix) direct Respondent No. 3 to clear/pay all Pending Bills at Kolkata;

(x) direct Respondent No. 4 to pay TA/DA Advance to the Petitioner well in advance for attending the enquiry and pass the TA/DA Bills of the Petitioner expeditiously and in no case later than a week of the submission of the Bills;

(xi) allow exemplary costs of the present Writ Petition to the Petitioner against the Respondent; and

(xi) pass such other and further order/(s) as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts, circumstances and premises of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL EVER PRAY"

2. From the aforesaid, it is noted that the petitioner is primarily challenging the charge-sheet dated March 14, 2017 and the order dated May 05, 2017 appointing the respondent No.2 as an Inquiry Officer. That apart, he is also seeking quashing of the order sheets passed by the respondent No.2 on November 11, 2017 and on different dates thereafter. The only submission made by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the manner in which the Inquiry Officer is proceeded with the inquiry shows his bias attitude and the petitioner is not expected to get justice from him and as such his appointment be quashed.

3. It is the submission of Mr. Mohanty that the petitioner had made representations in that regard vide his letters dated November 10, 2017, December 02, 2017 and March 7, 2018 to the disciplinary authority / Inquiry Officer. Unfortunately, the disciplinary authority had not decided the said representations of the petitioner which resulted in the Inquiry Offic