The principle of natural justice requires that the authority empowered to take a decision must act without bias. The doctrine of necessity cannot be applied when an alternate ad hoc Disciplinary Authority could have been appointed.

Challenging the orders passed by respondent-Bank removing the petitioner from service vide order (Annexure P-1), dated 8-12-2005 and dismissing his appeal vide order dated 4-4-2006 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Petitioner-Shri Raj Bahadur Khare at the relevant time when the impugned action took place was working as a Junior Management Grade-I in the respondent-Bank and was posted in Chandla Branch. He was appointed on 14-6-1978 and after earning various promotion due to his satisfactory service attained the position of officer in the cadre of Junior Management Grade-I.

3. It is the case of petitioner that while he was so working, his case for promotion was not being properly considered and the Bank Authorities were indulging in granting undue benefit to certain other employees in the matter of fixation of seniority, grant of promotion and various other service benefits, petitioner had being filing writ petitions before this Court challenging various actions of the Bank, between the year 2003-2005. It is stated that he had filed 10 writ petitions and particulars of these writ petitions are given in Para 3.1 of the petition. Reference is made particularly by the petitioner to two writ petitions namely W.P. (S) No. 110/2003 and W.P. (S) 6508/2005, it is contended that these writ petitions were filed against the illegal promotion granted to various persons in an arbitrary and illegal manner and it was also pointed out that some of the officers who were granted these promotions were related to certain Administrative Authorities of the Bank, like its Chairman.

4. Be it as it may be, it was the case of petitioner that at the relevant time, i.e., in the year 2003 the then Chairman of the Bank, one Shri S.K. Jain and the other officers came to his house on 27-9-2003 and tried to assault him, intimidate him, pressurised him for withdrawing the writ petitions filed. It is stated by the petitioner that because of the aforesaid he lodged an FIR with the police authorities against Shri S.K. Jain, Chairman, Shri S. Agnihotri, General Manager and one Shri N.C. Jain, ST. Manager, apart from Shri Prabhakhar Shukla against whom one petition was filed. It is stated that the case was registered by the police authorities, i.e., Police Station, Kotwali Teekamgarh and challan was filed in the Criminal Court on 18-3-2004. According to petitioner because of the aforesaid act of the petitioner the respondents got annoyed with the petitioner and, therefore, a charge-sheet (Annexure P-4), dated 28-4-2004 was issued to the petitioner. In the charge-sheet, the first allegation against the petitioner was with regard to lodging of a false complaint against Officers of the Bank and further allegations in the charge-sheet pertained to various communications made by petitioner to officers of the Bank particularly the Chairman, Shri S.K. Jain, casting aspiration and accusations, various other irregularities in the matter of working of the petitioner were also pointed out. Petitioner submitted various applications seeking documents and other papers to enable him to submit a detailed explanation to the charge-sheets (Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7) are the applications submitted by the petitioner. But, however, the request of petitioner for grant of documents were rejected by the Disciplinary Authority namely Chairman, Shri S.K. Jain, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to submit his reply to the charge-sheet without the documents. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and when matter was so pending it is stated that a second charge-sheet (Annexure P-5), dated 28-9-2004 was issued to the petitioner and in this the allegation made was that in a communication made by petitioner on 4-5-2004 to the Chairman of the Bank, Shri S.K. Jain various uncalled for comments and observations were made by the petitioner. It is indicated that petitioner is in habit of making false allegations and casting aspirations on the