No one can be a judge of their own case, and the participation of the second respondent in the disciplinary proceedings constituted bias and violated the principles of natural justice.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 31.5.2007 passed by the respondent imposing the punishment of reversion from the post of Superintendent to Assistant for three years and confer all consequential benefits.

2. Both the respondents are one and the same person. While the first respondent is impleaded in his official capacity, the second respondent is impleaded in his personal capacity.

3. The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows:

(a) Petitioner has joined in the services of the respondent office as Junior Assistant on 27.8.1981, promoted as Assistant in the year 1988 and further promoted as Superintendent on 13.7.2001. On 27.4.2006 he was posted in the Cane section.

(b) By order dated 18.8.2006 petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he behaved arrogantly with Junior Assistant when she wanted to close the attendance register on the forenoon of 31.7.2006 and the petitioner abused the Assistant Director Administration, who called the petitioner to enquire about the incident and also alleged that he arrogantly behaved with the Additional Director, the second respondent herein when he directed the petitioner to produce the file for discussion.

(c) Petitioner was issued with charge memo on 15.9.2006 for which he has submitted his explanation on 3.11.2006 and denied the allegations levelled against him. Petitioner submitted a representation before the Commissioner of Sugar stating that one S.Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Director has to be examined as a witness and therefore the said S.Krishnamoorthy may not be permitted to act as Enquiry Officer. The said request was rejected by the Commissioner of Sugars by his order dated 24.1.2007 and the said Krishnamoorthy conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 16.3.2007.Based on the enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment namely reversion order was passed on 31.5.2007.

(d) The said punishment order is challenged in this writ petition mainly on the ground that when the petitioner allegedly behaved arrogantly, the said S.Krishnamoorthy was available in the second respondents office and therefore he should be examined as a witness and the said request was erroneously rejected and the said Krishnamoorthy, who is a witness to the occurrence, conducted enquiry and gave a finding against the petitioner and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The objection raised having not been considered and the punishment is imposed only on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the said S.Krishnamoorthy, who was present in the office of the second respondent, is unsustainable and the second respondent, who is impleaded by name is a party to the second charge, has passed the impugned order of punishment. Therefore the procedure adopted by the respondent by conducting enquiry not only by the said S.Krishnamoorthy, but also ordering punishment by the second respondent, who is the complainant, is illegal.

4. In the counter affidavit filed it is contended that the petitioner is having a remedy of filing appeal before the Commissioner of Sugars and without availing the said alternate remedy this writ petition is filed and the same is not maintainable. Based on the material evidence available disciplinary action was initiated and final order was passed considering of the gravity of the charge by following the procedures. The said S.Krishnamoorthy, Assistant Director conducted enquiry without any bias and sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner. In para 19 of the Counter affidavit it is stated that the said K.Barathan, Additional Director of Sugar, Chennai-35, was connected to the occurrence of events in the chambers on 3.8.2006 and he being a Senior Officer, framed charges based on the written evidence and the said S.Krishnamoorthy was not at all present in the chambers on 3.8.2006 and therefore there is no illegality in appointing