LexCANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR. versus VIJAY D. WANI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 6 S.C.R. 622 CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR. v. VIJAY D. WANI AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No.18 of 2007) APRIL 16, 2008 [A.K. MATHUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Service Law - Disciplinary proceeding - Disciplinary Committee finding the delinquent officer guilty - Board C inflicting punishment of removal from service - Participation of the members of the Disciplinary Committee in Board meeting - Dismissal of departmental appeals - Writ Petition - High Court allowing the petition and directing reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service - On appeal, D held : The order of removal is violative of principles of natural justice - Hence vitiated - Participation of the members of the Disciplinary Committee in the decision making process for finding the respondent guilty is bias which is apparent and real - A person cannot be a judge in his own case - Doctrine of necessity was inapplicable as the Board could have E delegated its power - Delinquent Officer is entitled to 50% back wages with continuity of service - Administrative Law - Delegation of power - Principles of Natural Justice - Bias - Principle of Necessity F Respondent was employed with appellant-Board. Departmental enquiry was initiated against him alleging certain charges. Enquiry Committee found that the charges were proved. The appellant-Board accepted the report of the Committee, passed the order of removal of the respondent from service. The departmental appeal as G well as the appeal to the Ministry were dismissed. In Writ petition thereagainst, High Court held that order was violative of principles of natural justice and stood vitiated as the Board which passed the order of removal of the respondent consisted of all the three members of the H 622 t - CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR. v. 623 VIJAY D. WANI AND ORS. Enquiry Committee and voted in support of report of the A Committee. The Court directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD : 1. A person cannot be a Judge in his own case. Once the Disciplinary Committee finds the incumbent guilty, they cannot sit in judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them. The question of a bias is always the question of fact. The court c has to be vigilant while applying the principles of bias as it primarily depends on the facts of each case. The court should only act on real bias not merely on likelihood of bias. The objectivity is the hallmark of a.judicial system in our country. The very fact is that the disciplinary D committee who found the respondent guilty participated in decision mak1ng process for finding the respondent guilty and to dismiss him from service is bias which is apparent and real. Doctrine of necessity was inapplicable as the Board could have delegated its appellate power to E a committee. [Paras 5, 6 and 7] [630-B; 627-D; 630-C-D; 629-C] Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratan and Ors. 1986 (4) SCC 537; Manek Lal v. Prem Chand AIR 1957 SC 425; Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite and Co. F Ltd. 2002 (2)SCC 290 - relied on. PinochitUgarta No.21999(1)All ER 577 (HL)-referred to Judicial Review of the Administrative Action by Professor S.A. De Smith; Sir Bloom-Cooper's Comment on "Bias in G appeal", 2005 Public Law 225; 'Administrative Law' by H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth Ninth Edition - referred to. t 2.1 The plea that since the respondent did not work, therefore, he should not be paid any salary under the Rule "no work no pay" is not acceptable. [Para 8] [630-D-E; H 624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S. C.R. A 631-B] B Baldev Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 747; India Literacy Board and Ors. V Veena Chaturvedi and Ors. 2005 (3) SCC 79; Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2000(8) SCC 395 - distinguished. 2.2 So far as grant of back wages is concerned, i.t depends upon case to case. In the present case since the order of Cantonment Board was set aside because it suffered from bias, it will be unfair to de'ny 50% back c wages to the respondent. In view of the fact that since long passage of time has lapsed, it would not be fair to permit the respondent to proceed afresh in the matter. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent be reinstated with the benefit of 50% back wages and continuity of D service. [Para 9 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.