Adjudication of the proceeding/dispute by Dy.Registrar who himself filed complaint held not lega

K.A.Swami, C.J.

In this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 13. 1985 passed by the first respondent in C.M.A. No.57 of 1980. That was an appeal preferred against the award dated 6. 1978 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ootacamund, second respondent herein in A.R.C. No. 1856/76-77. The second respondent passed an award against the petitioner for a sum of Rs.65,188.08 being the value of the stock deficit occurred in the oil men section of the petitioner society as on 312. 1976 and 30.1.1977. The first respondent affirmed the said award by judgment dated 13. 1985 in C.M.A.No.57 of 1980. Of course, in this case, the petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record who are petitioners 2 to 8. It may also be pointed out here that the deceased petitioner was also prosecuted by the third respondent society on the same set of facts for the offence of breach of trust and misappropriation in C.C. No.97 of 1980 before the Special Judicial I Class Magistrate, Coimbatore and he was acquitted by the Special Judicial I Class Magistrate by judgment dated 14. 1981. We are not required to go into the question as to the effect of such acquittal in the instant case. It is also not necessary to go into the merits of the several other contentions having regard to the one grave infirmity in the proceeding which was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the second respondent to whom the dispute was referred for adjudication was none other than the officer who filed the complaint against the petitioner before the criminal court on the very same set of facts and he was also examined as one of the prosecution witnesses. It happened before the dispute was referred and adjudicated by him. It is one of the cardinal principles of our jurisprudence that no person who is a complainant in the case shall be the adjudicator. Therefore, the entire proceeding has to be held as vitiated by reason of this grave and serious infirmity. A person who had prosecuted the petitioner cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to have approached the case dispassionately. Even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the second respondent had approached the case dispassionately the principles of natural justice require that such a person should not be an adjudicator of the cause in question. Justice should not only be done, but it must also seem to done.

The Supreme Court in Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1356, while dealing with a case, whether a witness can be a judge of his own testimony and certify it as true, observed thus:

“....The main thrust of the charges against the appellant related to his conduct qua respondent 3. Therefore, it was not open to the later to sit in judgment over the explanation offered by the appellant and decide that the explanation was untrue. No person can be a judge in his own cause and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true. Any one who has a personal stakes in an inquiry must keep himself aloof from the conduct of the inquiry. The order of dismissal passed against the appellant stands vitiated for the simple reason that the issue as to who, between the appellant, and respondent 3, was speaking the truth was decided by respondent 3 himself.”

We have, in The Group General Manager Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Thiruchirapalli and others v. R.Hendry Baskar, W.A. No. 1381 of 1994, considered the disciplinary proceedings held by the Group General Manager against the workmen, on the charge that the workmen attempted to assault him, and held that the Group General Manager was in the position of a victim who could be examined as one of the witnesses, being acomplainant in the proceeding, and could not function as a Judge in his own cause. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent viz. the Deputy Registrar,