it2025_00338 — Complainant in a disciplinary case should not act as a judge in disposing of the charge-sheet in the precise order in this case i.e. no man should be judge in his own cause

Complainant in a disciplinary case should not act as a judge in disposing of the charge-sheet in the precise order in this case i.e. no man should be judge in his own cause — This chunk is a section from a judicial ruling in the case of Shri Jugal Kishore Bisoi v. Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication and others, where the orders of the Appellate Authority, Revisional,... — Facts : The Applicant herein who retired on superannuation on 30-4-2005, while working as a Telephone Supervisor in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) under Telecom District Manager (BSNL) under Telecom District Manager (BSNL) Cuttack was issued with a chargesheet, dated 26-11-1990 and was enquired into by Investigation Officer (IO) and submitted his report on 24-8-1992 to the Disciplinary Authority. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the Applicant did not obey the orders and refused to receive the letter of Mr. M.K. Goel, TDM, R-4 herein included only in his designated capacity and not by name. The Article of Charge V for violating Rule 3 (1)

(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by insubordination, Charge VI for making derogatory and obscene statements against senior Departmental Officers and instigated staff on duty to leave important position like watching the main entrance gate, participated in illegal Dharna in the compound of TDM's office and shouted frequent slogans during office hours causing disturbance to office work. The enquiry officer held that the charges are proved. Hence he was punished withdrawing all service and financial benefits retrospectively. This OA is filed praying to quash the charge-sheet, dated 26-11-1990, the report of IO proving the charges as true, dated 24-8-1992, order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 28-10-1992, order of the Appellate Authority, dated 14-10-1999, order of the Revisional Authority, dated 23-11-2000 and order of the Reviewing Authority, dated 25-1-2003 with all consequential benefits of service and financial benefits retrospectively. Similar disciplinary case arises in service parlour. Hence this concise judgment of this case is limited to the brief of the views and result of the orders of the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the Applicant was a Member of Employees' Trade Union. The charge is that, the Applicant used obscene language and slogans against one Mr. M.K. Goel, the TDM and violated the orders issued by TDM. TDM is included as a Respondent by designation and not by name of Mr. M.K. Goel. As per rules and various judgments made, laws being a compliance, should not have dealt with the matter even though Respondents state that this point had not been raised by the Applicant at any point of time and hence this point should not be raised at this stage. The first point raised by the Advocate of Respondents relying on the case of M/s. Crawford Bayley and Company and others v. Union of India and others [ AIR 2006 SC 2544 ], wherein the provisions of Section 3 of the Public Premises Act are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it makes the Estate Officer of the statutory authority as a judge in his own case. In this connection, the Apex Court held that the Estate Officer appointed by the concerned administrative department cannot be said to be a judge in his own cause as there is no personal interest. In the present case, obscene slogans were raised against TDM and M.K. Goel was TDM at that point of time. The observation of Apex Court noted above also said that each case depends on its facts and no generalization can be made. The factual aspects of this case and the case before the Apex Court referred to above is totally different and hence that decision has no application in the present case. Hence it cannot be said that issuance of charge-sheet and awarding punishment by Mr. M.K. Goel, TDM is not opposed to the doctrine that 'no man can be a judge in his own cause. In the case of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices and others v. G. Mohan Nair [ AIR 1999 SC 2113 ], Apex Court quashed the order of the Tribunal on the ground that there is no material to indicate that any prejudice was caused to the employee concerned as a result of the appointment of an inquiry officer and presenting officer by the original Disciplinary Authority. The order against Respondent in that case was passed by the ad hoc Disciplinary Authority after taking into account the report of Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any mala fides the present enquiry report should not be set aside and the action of Disciplinary Authority should not be quashed only on technical ground that instead of the ad hoc Disciplinary Authority, the actual Disciplinary Authority had appointed the Enquiry Officer in the present case. In the present case, the Applicant alleges that the orders of TDM (M.K. Goel) against whom the Applicant made slogans and as such, he should not have issued the chargesheet, appointed IO and issued punishment order. The facts of the Mohan Nair's case is different and hence the same has no application in the present case. In the case of Union of India and others v. Nagamalleshwar Rao [ AIR 1998 SC 1111 ], relied by Respondents, that case stands on different footing in which the charge against the employee was that, he had obtained appointment by disclosing incorrect percentage of marks despite of repeated demands. In that case, the delinquent was found to have obtained much less marks than the last person appointed. In that context, the Apex Court held that the Tribunal cannot examine evidence produced before IO as if it is Appellate Authority which is not the case on hands and as such the said decision has no application in the present case. Similarly, the case of Manak Lal v. Dr. Premchand Sanghvi and others [ AIR 1957 SC 425 and 432 ] has no application as the facts and issues involved in the present case are different and distinct as justifiability of issuance of charge, appointment of IO and PO and imposition of punishment by an authority personally concerned is the point of law and point of law can be raised at any point of time as no more res integra, especially when being conscious it has been made clear vide DGP & T Memo No. 6/64/64-Disc., dated 27-1-1965 that in a case where the prescribed Appointing or Disciplinary Authority is unable to function as Disciplinary Authority in respect of an official, on account of his being personally concerned with the charges or being a material witness in support of charges. In such a case, ad hoc Disciplinary Authority is to be appointed under provisions Rule 12 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 when such an action is not taken by Disciplinary Authority makes his action vulnerable. No such case AIR 2005 SC 1128 has been relied upon by Respondents. In a democratic system, Rule of Law, fairness of action, propriety, responsibility, institutional impeccability and non-biased justice delivery system constitutes the pillars on which its survival remains (Ref. Chandra Kumar Chopra v. Union of India and others [ 2012 (3) SLJ 230 (SC) ] ). It is a settled law that no man should be a judge in his own cause and that justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to have been done. In the case of Gullupalli Nageswar Rao and others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Corporation and another [ 1959 Supp. 1 SCR 319 ], the doctrine of bias is well settled and no man should be a judge in his own cause. In the case of A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others [ AIR 1970 SC 150 ], one of the Selection Board Members who is involved in that selection cannot be a member of the Selection Board. In the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab and others [ 2012 (3) SLJ 386 (SC) ], it was held by Apex Court that 'none can be a judge in his own cause. The relevant Para. 16 which states so is reproduced in the judgment. In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and others [ 1989 (1) SLJ 109 (1987) (4) SCC 611 ] one of the members, namely R-4 in that case against whom the complaint was made, making him a member of Court Martial in the departmental disciplinary proceedings is incorrect.