ARJUN CHAUBEY versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 23-03-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
, .. B 
c 
' 
D 
' 
G 
902 
ARJUN CHAUBEY 
v. ' 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
. 
March 23, 1984 
(Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, .C.J., V.D. TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PA1HAK, · 
'D.P. MADON AND M.P. THAKKf\R, JJ.J 
Service Jurisprudence-Dismissal Order ·passed by the competent authority '-
d~spensing with an enquiry under Rule I4(ii) of'tht R(li/way- Servants (Discipline 
and Appeal) Rafe., 1968 read with Proviso (b) to Article 311(2) of t~e Corutitution 
-Majority of charges of appellant's mlsconduct are in relation to competent 
authority who dismissed him-Doctrine 0fbias-Accusser cann'ot hf! a judge ofhiS 
own cause-NatuYa! Justice, Principles, violated. 
The appellant was working as a senior clerk in the office of the cbiCf Com-
. mercial Superintendent. 'Northern Railwa;, Va~anasi. On May 22, 
198~, the 
,.Caior Commercial Officer wrote a letter to him calling up.on him to offer his 
expJanatic;>n i'n fegard to tWelve ch&rges of gross indiscipline, mos;Jy rel;lting to 
the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent. The appellant submitted his 
explanation to the charges by his reply dated June 9, 1982. On the very next day, 
the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent served a second_ notice upon the 
appellant saying that the exPlanation offered by -him was not convincing but 
t'hat another chance was being given to him tq offer his' e~p{anation- regardi1g 
the spetjfic· charges which were conveyed to· him earli~r. By this letter, the 
appellant was als9 ·caned up_on to submit his explanation within three days' as 
to why l}eter,rent disCiplinary action should not be t{lken against him. The appel-
lant subrilitted his further explanation on June 14;1982. but on the very next 
d_ay, the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent passed· an order dismissing 
him fiom service on the ground that he was not fit to be retained in service. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challen-
ging the order of dismissal on variqus gro·unds. The .writ petition was-dismissed 
and hence the appeal special leave of the Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD : I : J. The order of dismissal passed against the appellant siands 
vitiated for the simple re~son that the issue· as to who, betwun the ap(>ellant 
and Respondent No. 3 (the dismissing authority) was speitking the truth was 
d~ided by Respondent No. 3. The main thrust of the charges against the appel-
. lant related to his conduct 'Illa Respondent '3. Therefore, it was not open to the 
18.uer tO sit in Judgment over. the eXplanation offered by the appelJant and, 
decided that the explanation was untrue. No person can be a judge in his own 
1-
-{ 
• ' 
'. 
l 
ARJUN CHA UllEY V, UNIOl-l 
303 
cause and no witness can certify thttt his oWn tCstimony is true~ Any one who 
A 
has a pers6na1 stake in an .enquiry must keep himself aloof from the conduct of 
thejnquiry. 
[306 F-Hl 
I : 2. On the facts of tho case, the illegality touching the proceedings which 
endetl in th~ dismissal of the appellant is, "so patent apd loudly obtrllsive that 
it leaves an indelible stamp of infirmity" on the decision of Respondent No. 3. 
[307 B-C] 
· B 
• 2. From the-charges 2 to 7 and ll;it is obvious that if an enq~iry were to 
be held into the charges framed against the appellant. the principal witness fen: 
the Department would have been Responden~ No. 3 (the dismisSing authority) 
himself as the main accuser and-the target of aP!iellant's misconduct. Surpri-
singly, the explanation dated June 9, 1982 of the appellant to the letter of 
accusation dated May 22, 1982 was· considered ·on its merit~ by Respondent 
himself. Thereby, the accuser be~ame the Judge. 
[305 G-H, 306 Al 
·Not O!flY that, the further explanation submitted by the appeJlant was consi'.' 
dered by Respondent No. 3 himself. The order of dismissal dated-June 15", 1962 
which was issued by Respondent No. 3 recites that he was fully . satisfied that it 
was not •easonabiy practicable to hold an inquiry into the appellant's conduct as 
provided by the Rules and that he had oome to the conclusion that the appellant 
was not fit to be"retained in service· and had, therefore,· to be dismissed, 
Evidently, Respondent 3 assessed the weight of his own accusation~ againSt the 
appellant and Passed a jUdg~ent 'Y}lich is one of. the ea;iest to pass-~ namely~ 
that be himself was truthful person and the appellant a liar. In d~ing this, 
Respondent No. 3 viola~ed a fundamental principle or natural justice. 
[305 B-C, 306 Fl 
The Sta

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