AMAR NATH CHOWDHURY versus BRAITHWAITE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 11-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMAR NATH CHOWDHURY 
v. 
BRAITHWAITE AND CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 20\l2 
B 
(V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Disciplinary Proceedings-Bias-Appeal against order of Disciplinary 
C Authority-Disciplinary Authority also acting as Appellate Authority-Held, 
order of Appellate Authority vitiated on account of bias-Dual function 
permissible only when permitted by an act of legislation or statutory 
provision-Administrative Law-Bias. 
D 
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against appellant by the 
respondent-Company. Disciplinary Authority, who was the Chairman-cum-
y 
--1 . 
Managing Director of the company, accepted the report oflnquiry Committee 
.• / 
and removed the appellant from service. Appellant preferred appeal against 
the said order under regulations framed by the company before the Board of 
Directors which was dismissed by a non-speaking order. The Chairman-cum-
E Managing Director presided over and participated in the deliberations of the 
meeting of the Board. Appellant filed writ petition challenging the said order 
which was allowed by Single Judge. In appeal, Division Bench reversed the 
order of Single Judge. Hence, this appeal. 
Appellant contended that order of Appellate Authority was vitiated on 
F account of legal bias by the participation of Disciplinary Authority in the 
deliberations of meeting of the Board which decided his appeal. 
Respondent relied upon doctrine of necessity and contended that rule 
against bias is not available as Chairman-cum-Managing Director was 
G required to participate in the meeting of the Board under the Regulations 
framed by the Company. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Where an authority earlier had taken a decision, he is 
H disqualified to sit in appeal against his own decision, as he already prejudged 
184 
A.N. CHOWDHURYv. BRAITHWAITE AND CO. LTD. [V.N. KHARE,J.] 185 
the matter, otherwise such an appeal would be termed an appeal from Caesar A 
to Caesar and filing of an appeal would be an exercise in futility. Such a dual 
function is not permissible on account of established rule against bias. In a 
situation where such a dual function is discharged by one and the same 
authority, unless permitted by an act of legislation or statutory provision, the 
same would be contrary to rule against bias. [187-G) 
Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab and Ors. v. Harbhajan 
Singh, [1996) 9 SCC 281, relied on. 
B 
2. Fair play demanded the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the 
Company ought not to have participated in the deliberations of the meeting of C 
the Board when the Board heard and decided the appeal of the appellant. The 
Board could have constituted a Committee of the Board/Management or any 
officers of the Company by excluding Chairman-cum-Managing Director of 
the Company and delegated any of its power, including the appellate power, to 
such a committee to eliminate any allegation of bias against such an appellate 
authority. Reliance on the doctrine of necessity in the present case is totally D 
misplaced. [188-E] 
3. The order and judgment under challenge as well as the order passed 
by the Appellate Authority are set aside and the matter is sent back to the 
Appellate Authority to decide the appeal by a speaking order, in accordance 
with law. [188-G] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 193 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2000 of the Kolkata High Court 
in F.M.A. No. 144of1992. 
P.P. Rao, Ms. Nandini Mukherjee and Deba Prasad Mukherjee for the 
Appellant. 
D.P. Roy Chowdhury and G.S. Chatterjee for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.N. KHARE, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant herein was an employee of the Braithwaite and Company 
Limited, Calcutta, a Government of India Undertaking (hereinafter referred to 
F 
G 
as 'the Company). It appears that certain misconduct committed by the H 
y 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] l S.C.R. 
A appellant came to the notice of the Company. With the result, the Company 
"f 
decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, herein. 
"" 
Consequently, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet to which he gave 
an explanation. An Inquiry Committee constituted for that purpose after 
making an enquiry, found that the charges levelled against the appellant 
proved. The Inquiry Committee accordingly submitted its report to the 
B Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, who was the then Cha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.