Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct departmental enquiry against employee was disqualified to conduct enquiry on principle of bias where he was also appointed as Chief Engineer to the post becoming available on account of suspension of employee and employee challenged appointment of Enquiry Officer as Chief Engineer in legal proceedings.

C.K. Prasad, J.

]1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 24-8-1998 passed by the President, Board of Revenue, whereby he has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 and set aside the order of termination of his service dated 18-10-1993 as also the order of his suspension dated 13-8-1988. He has further directed for payment of all back wages to respondent No. 5.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 5 joined the service of M.P. Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. as Assistant Engineer on 1-5-1969. Thereafter he was promoted as Executive Engineer by order dated 25-6-1979. While he was working as Executive Engineer, by order dated 31-12-1984 he was directed to perform the work of Chief Engineer till alternative arrangement is made. While he was functioning as such by order dated 4-12-1987 he was put under suspension. He challenged the same by filing M.P. No. 3986/87 and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 3-5-1988 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order putting him under suspension. However, while doing so, it gave liberty to the employer to put him under suspension in accordance with law. Respondent No. 5 was again put under suspension by order dated 13-8-1988 and a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him.

3. Respondent No. 4 D.C. Jain, who had retired from Government Service, by order dated 12-6-1989, was appointed as Chief Engineer of the petitioner M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Federation), until further orders from the date he reports for duty. It is relevant here to state that respondent No. 5 had also filed M.P. No. 2122 of 1988 praying therein for regularisation of his appointment as Chief Engineer. This Court by order dated 31-7-1989 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that he had equally efficacious alternative remedy under Section 54 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 5 preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and by order dated 28-3-1990 it dismissed the Special Leave Petition with liberty to respondent No. 5 to file writ petition before the High Court "claiming that his right to be considered for promotion under old Rules has become vested right and the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Chief Engineer was bad". As observed by the Supreme Court respondent No. 5 then filed M.P. No. 983/1990 impleading respondent No. 4 D.C. Jain as respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition. When the matter was taken on 28-7-1990 he withdrew the writ petition in order to avail the alternative remedy under Section 55 (2) of the Act.

4. Aforesaid D.C. Jain who was appointed as Chief Engineer until further orders came to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer by order dated 21-12-1989 to conduct the departmental enquiry initiated against respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 raised objection to his appointment as Enquiry Officer and requested for change of the Enquiry Officer. This was not acceded to and D.C. Jain the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 16-7-1990; holding respondent No. 5 guilty of charges 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10. The report of the Enquiry Officer was placed for consideration before the Administrative Committee of the Federation in its meeting dated 19-6-1992 and it resolved to impose the punishment of removal from service.

5. It is relevant here to state that respondent No. 5 prior to the order of removal had filed M.P. No. 1562/1992 against the order of suspension. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition he was removed from service and by way of amendment he impugned the order of removal also. This Court by order dated 24-8-1994 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that he had statutory alternative remedy under Section 55 (2) of the Act. Thereafter respondent No. 5 raised the dispute before the Reg