Back
'Justice Should Not Only Be Done, But Seen To Be Done': Supreme Court on Bias in Disciplinary Probes
In a ruling that underscores the sanctity of procedural fairness, the has refused to interfere with the 's decision to set aside a dismissal order against an employee of . A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan invoked the timeless maxim of , remanding the matter for reconsideration by a fresh disciplinary authority. The verdict, delivered on , in & Anr. v. Khazan Chand & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 363), balances the need for accountability with the appearance of impartiality.
From Forged Letters to Court Battles: The Dispute Unravels
The saga began with serious charges against respondent No. 1, Khazan Chand, an employee at , a premier institution under the . A departmental inquiry in 2006 found one of two charges proved—though details on the second remained unclear. The then-Director, Smt. Madhu Pant (respondent No. 3), acting as Disciplinary Authority, dismissed Khazan Chand.
Tensions had simmered earlier: Khazan Chand authored a letter accusing Madhu Pant of irregularities, purportedly co-signed by another official (whose signature was later contested as forged). He followed up with a public interest writ petition against her non-extension and sought her disciplining, which he later withdrew. (appellant) and its Chairman challenged the High Court's intervention, while Khazan Chand defended it on grounds of bias.
The Single Judge on , and the Division Bench on , quashed the dismissal, citing procedural flaws tied to the Disciplinary Authority's role. The Supreme Court appeal followed.
Appellants' Defense: Proven Charges, No Alternatives
's counsel argued the dismissal was "reasonable and proportionate" post-proven charges. They highlighted the forged letter implicating the Director and the withdrawn writ, insisting withdrawn allegations nullified bias claims. Invoking the , they noted no other officer of requisite rank existed—only the Director could decide, with appeals available to superiors. At worst, they urged remand for the Disciplinary Authority's fresh take on the inquiry report, decrying full reinstatement with back wages as excessive.
Employee's Rebuttal: A Trail of Animosity
Khazan Chand's side painted a picture of vendetta. Madhu Pant had filed complaints against him with higher authorities and the government, fueling bias perceptions. Her post-inquiry contract extension (one year or till replacement) reflected scrutiny over her conduct. Any order by her, they argued, was a "nullity" riddled with malice, disqualifying her from career-impacting decisions.
'Lack of Faith' Casts Long Shadows: Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning
The bench meticulously dissected the bias angle, prioritizing perception over technicalities. While acknowledging the inquiry's seriousness and partial proof of charges, it faulted the process post-report: the Disciplinary Authority must independently assess, disagree if needed with reasons, and issue show-cause notices.
Crucially, prior hostilities—
"the respondent No.1 had sent the so-called forged letter... and later... a writ petition"
—irrevocably tainted proceedings. Withdrawal didn't erase the "levelling of serious charges," creating reasonable doubt. Echoing LiveLaw's analysis, the Court stressed authorities must avoid
"leaving anything for the respondent No.1 to be aggrieved of."
No precedents were directly cited, but the ruling reinforces foundational tenets, distinguishing procedural defects (remediable) from substantive merits (untouched).
Key Observations
"We are reminded of the maxim that '' ."
"...the person who was to take a final decision in the disciplinary proceeding, against whom already, he had expressed his lack of faith twice ..."
"In the present case, where already the respondent No.3 was at the receiving end of allegations made by the respondent No.1, the Authorities ought to have been mindful..."
Fresh Start, Tight Timeline: What the Verdict Means
Upholding the High Court's quashing on procedural grounds, the Court revived proceedings from the , inquiry report stage. A
new Disciplinary Authority
—now in place—must decide
"expeditiously and latest within... three months."
It rejected pension rule arguments, deeming continuity pre-superannuation (
). Interregnum effects hinge on the final order; no merits opinion expressed, urging employee cooperation.
This nuanced approach safeguards employee rights without absolving potential misconduct, potentially guiding future cases where personal animus shadows discipline. For institutions like , it's a reminder: impartiality's appearance is non-negotiable.
