Back
1996 Supreme(Gau) 194
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.N.Baruah, J.
Uma Prasad Gogoi -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 1874 of 1989
Decided On : 26-08-1996
R.K.Jaitly , B.Dutta, B.Choudhary, A.Sharma
The principles of natural justice, including the requirement for an impartial and unbiased adjudicating authority, must be strictly adhered to in disciplinary proceedings, and any reasonable apprehension of bias vitiates the entire proceeding.
Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - BIAS - INQUIRY OFFICER - APPOINTMENT - REASONABLE APPREHENSION - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - VALIDITY - PROCEDURE - COMPLIANCE - DOCUMENTS - SUPPLY - REFUSAL - JUSTIFICATION - INDEPENDENT FINDING - NECESSITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION - SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL - VALIDITY - CONSIDERATION - GENUINENESS - DOUBT - REINSTATEMENT - ENTITLEMENT - PECUNIARY AND OTHER SERVICE BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Forest Ranger, was removed from service based on an inquiry report submitted in 1973. The Tribunal set aside the initial removal order, reinstated the petitioner, and regularized his services. The petitioner was promoted and engaged in various departmental activities. However, he was again removed from service several years later. The petitioner challenged the removal orders, alleging irregularities and bias in the inquiry process.
Finding of the Court:
1. The inquiry conducted by Shri PC Goswami suffered from irregularities, including the refusal to supply documents sought by the petitioner without referring the matter to the disciplinary authority. 2. The Inquiry Officer, Shri PC Goswami, had initiated the proceeding, framed charges, prepared the show cause notice, and requested his appointment as the Inquiry Officer, raising a reasonable apprehension of bias. 3. The disciplinary authority did not independently consider the matter and decide the case, further supporting the likelihood of bias. 4. The subsequent removal was also based on the same report from 1973, raising doubts about the genuineness of the grounds for removal.
Issues: 1. Whether the inquiry process was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the Inquiry Officer's involvement in various stages of the process, including initiation, charge framing, and request for appointment, created a reasonable apprehension of bias. 3. Whether the disciplinary authority's failure to independently consider the matter and make its own findings violated the principles of natural justice. 4. Whether the subsequent removal, based on the same report from 1973, was valid and free from extraneous considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The procedure prescribed under Rule 9 of the Assam Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964, for conducting disciplinary proceedings is mandatory, and non-compliance with any of its provisions vitiates the entire proceeding. 2. Natural justice requires that the adjudicating authority be disinterested and impartial, and any real likelihood of bias disqualifies the authority from adjudicating the matter. 3. The Inquiry Officer's involvement in various stages of the process, including initiation, charge framing, and request for appointment, created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which was not dispelled by the disciplinary authority's independent consideration of the matter. 4. The subsequent removal, based on the same report from 1973, raised doubts about the genuineness of the grounds for removal, considering the petitioner's reinstatement, regularized services, promotion, and engagement in departmental activities.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned removal orders and directed the petitioner's reinstatement, considering him to be in service from the date of removal till his superannuation. The petitioner was entitled to all pecuniary and other service benefits as if he had not been removed from service.
2. Briefly the facts are : The petitioner was a confirmed Forest Ranger under the Forest Department of Assam. He was confirmed in his post with effect from 1.4.53. In the year 1968 he was released from the Forest Department allowing him to join Soil Conservation Department as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner joined in the new department on deputation. While serving in the said department, in the month of March, 1972 he was promoted in his parent department, namely, Forest Department, to the Class I post of Assam Forest Service. Though he was promoted in the parent department, he was allowed to continue in the Soil Conservation Department. At the relevant time Shri PC Goswami was the Director of Soil Conservation. By an order dated 11.6.71 the petitioner was placed under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceeding. Thereafter a departmental proceeding had been drawn up against the petitioner by the Tribal Areas and WBC Department (for short, TA and WBC Department). The petitioner was suspended and proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a report given by Shri PC Goswami the then Director of Soil Conservation Department. In this report Shri PC Goswami made allegations of misappropriation against the petitioner. Shri PC Goswami prepared the show cause notice and sent it in triplicate to the Secretary TA and WBC Department to issue it suggesting his own name for appointment as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. Accordingly, on 2.12.71 the Secretary, TA and WBC Department issued the show cause notice with the list of witnesses and documents claiming himself to be the disciplinary authority and appointing Shri PC Goswami as the Inquiry Officer without, however, awaiting for the reply. Meanwhile, on 20.3.72 the Forest Department (parent department) promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer.
The petitioner submitted provisional lists of relevant documents for verification and for furnishing copies for preparing his defence statement. However, the petitioner's request was not acceded to. Thereafter, a representation was made by the petitioner in this regard. The request made by the said representation was also turned down. By Annexure 12 the petitioner expressed his inability to submit defence statement in the absence of those copies which, according to him, were relevant for the purpose of preparing his defence. The Inquiry Officer, Shri PC Goswami conducted the enquiry and submitted his report finding the petitioner guilty. Second show cause notice was also issued. In reply to the show cause notice the petitioner pointed out the irregularities in conducting the enquiry by Annexure 16, Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from service by Annexure 17prder dated 4.7.75. An appeal was filed before the appellate authority which, however, was rejected. A further appeal was preferred before the Assam Administrative Tribunal. In the appeal also the petitioner took up grounds of irregularities and also raised the question of biasness of the Inquiry Officer inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer Shri PC Goswami himself made the allegations, prepared the show cause notice and also framed the charges. ' Petitioner also took the ground that the Secretary, TA and WBC Department not being the disciplinary authority, he had no jurisdiction to pass order of removal of the petitioner. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal and after hearing, the appeal was allowed on the ground that Secretary, TA and WBC had no jurisdiction to award punishment. How
