Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jagdish Sahai, J.
LAXMI CHAND AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 2103 Of 1959
Decided On : 11/28/1960
NATURAL JUSTICE - BIAS - PRESIDENT OF MUNICIPAL BOARD - ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 69-A OF U. P. MUNICIPALITIES ACT - CONDUCT OF ENQUIRY BY PRESIDENT - BIAS AGAINST EXECUTIVE OFFICER - WHETHER ENQUIRY INVALID - WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION - WHETHER ISSUABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Hapur, challenged the charge sheet served on him and the enquiry initiated against him by the President of the Board under Section 69-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, alleging bias and hostility of the President towards him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the President alone could conduct the enquiry under Section 69-A of the Act, despite allegations of bias, as the statute required him to do so. The Court reasoned that the President had the sole authority to initiate proceedings, frame charges, make recommendations, and submit the record to the State Government, and that the enquiry was an integral part of this process. The Court also held that the President did not become a Judge in his own cause as he had no power to pass any order to the detriment of the Executive Officer, and the ultimate decision had to be taken by the State Government or the Board.
Issues: 1. Whether the President of the Municipal Board was required to conduct the enquiry under Section 69-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act, despite allegations of bias against him. 2. Whether the President became a Judge in his own cause by conducting the enquiry. 3. Whether a writ of certiorari and prohibition could be issued to quash the enquiry proceedings and restrain the State Government from acting on the President's recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Section 69-A of the Act and concluded that the President alone could conduct the enquiry, as he had the exclusive authority to initiate proceedings, frame charges, make recommendations, and submit the record to the State Government or the Board. The Court held that the enquiry was an integral part of this process, and it was inconceivable that someone else would conduct it. 2. The Court held that the President did not become a Judge in his own cause because he had no power to pass any order to the detriment of the Executive Officer. The ultimate decision had to be taken by the State Government or the Board, to whom the President had to submit his recommendations. 3. The Court held that a writ of certiorari and prohibition could not be issued in the present case because the State Government had jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the President's recommendations were not binding on it. The Court stated that a writ of prohibition could not be issued to restrain the State Government from looking at a particular paper or relying on a particular piece of evidence.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the President alone could conduct the enquiry under Section 69-A of the Act, despite allegations of bias, and that the President did not become a Judge in his own cause. The Court also held that a writ of certiorari and prohibition could not be issued in the present case.
( 1 ) THE petitioner Laxmi Chand Agarwal is the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Hapur (hereinafter referred to as the Board), having been appointed to that post in the year 1931. Sri K. C. Mittal was the President of the Board in January, 1958. On 23rd of November, 1958, Sri mittal served on the petitioner a charge sheet and started proceedings against him under Section 69-A of the U. P. Municipalities Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry held against him, and Sri Mittal, after completing the enquiry, has submitted the record of the case with his recommendations to the State Government before whom the matter is pending at present. The State Government has issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. On these facts the petitioner has came to this Court and has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of enquiry including the charge sheet. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of prohibition commanding the State Government not to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the recommendations of Sri Mittal.
( 2 ) I have heard Mr. S. N. Kakkar for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Khare and the learned Senior standing Counsel Mr. Shambhu Prasad for the respondents. Mr. Kakkar has made only one submission before me and it is that there is Overwhelming evidence to show that Sri K. C. Mittal had a bias against and was hostile to the petitioner and consequently, according to the principles of natural justice, he was incompetent to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. No other submission has been made before me.
( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in the case. The petitioner has made a very large number of allegations with a view to show that Sri K. C. Mittal was biased against him. The reason why according to the petitioner Sri K. C. Mittal was very displeased with him was that the relations between one Sri Tara Chand Modi (now deceased) and Sri K. C. Mittal had been very strained for a long time past. Sri Tara Chand Modi was the President of the Board for a fairly long time. The petitioner was even at that time the Executive Officer of the Board. The petitioners complaint is that Sri K. C. Mittal thought that the petitioner was a right hand man of sri Tara Chand Modi and that was the main reason why he (Sri Mittal) got displeased with the petitioner. Most of the allegations made bv the petitioner showing bias have been controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of some of the respondents.
( 4 ) IN my opinion the case can be decided on a question of law without very much going into questions of fact. The question of law that arises for consideration is whether, considering the language of Section 69-A of the Act, it was possible for any one else than Sri Mittal (the then president) to have conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and submitted his recommendations to the State Government under that section.
( 5 ) IT is true that it is one of the accepted principles of natural justice that no one should be a judge in his own cause and that a person who has a bias against another person should not try him. The principle is so well known that no authorities need be mentioned in support of it. The house of Lords in the case of Dimes v. Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal, (1852) 3 HL 759 reiterated the rule with great force. Our Own Supreme Court has emphasised its importance in the cases, of State of U. P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and Nageswarrao v. State of Andhra pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1376 and other cases and also held that it applied not only to Courts of justice or Judicial Tribunals but also to other authorities who have to act judicially in deciding the rights of others i. e. , authorities who are empowered to discharge quasi-judicial functions.
( 6 ) THIS general rule, however, has an exception and that is that a Judge who
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
