Allegations of bias against an Inquiry Officer must be substantiated with evidence; mere assertions are insufficient to quash proceedings.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Challenge to Charge-sheet and Inquiry Officer - Petitioner challenged the Charge Sheet dated 14.03.2017 and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer on grounds of bias. No evidence establishing bias was provided, and the Inquiry Officer provided detailed reasons for conducting the inquiry. Court held that unsubstantiated allegations do not warrant quashing the Charge Sheet. (Paras 8, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is contesting a charge sheet for fraudulent transactions involving public funds while serving as Assistant Registrar. Allegations included bias from the Inquiry Officer based on previous representations which were deemed unsubstantial. (Paras 2-6)

Findings of Court:
The Inquiry Officer's handling and conduct of proceedings deemed appropriate; claims of bias were unsubstantiated and aimed at delaying proceedings. Furthermore, there was no violation of procedural norms nor merit in the petition against the Inquiry Officer. (Paras 12-18)

Issues: The main issues addressed were the claims of bias against the Inquiry Officer and the validity of the Charge Sheet regarding procedural compliance. (Paras 15, 17)

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court's tests for bias must demonstrate actual likelihood, which was not established in this case; mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not suffice for quashing proceedings. The substantive legal principle emphasizes that a party alleging bias must substantiate claims with evidence. (Paras 7, 11)

Result: Petition dismissed; applications related to the same dismissed as infructuous.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's prayers for quashing inquiry orders. (Para 1)
2. petitioner challenges inquiry officer's bias. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. respondent defends inquiry officer's actions. (Para 5 , 8 , 12)
4. charges relate to fraudulent transactions. (Para 6)
5. supreme court's tests of bias established. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. petitioner's conduct suggests premeditated strategy. (Para 13)
7. court dismisses the petition. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--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