KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. versus GIRJA SHANKAR PANT AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 18-10-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. 
v. 
GIRJA SHANKAR PANT AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 18, 2000 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJE~ JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Departmental Enquiry-Employee served with show-cause notice 
C framing charges-Documents proving charges neither given to the employee 
nor was he allowed inspection-No proper hearing held-No opportunity 
for cross-examination of witnesses-Presenting Officer not appointed-Enquiry 
officer submitting report proving charges-Order of termination passed on 
the basis of Enquiry report-Held, the order suffers from bias and malice and 
D non-compliance of doctrine of natural justice-Hence bad in law-
Administrative Law. 
E 
F 
Departmental proceedings-Judicial review-Whether allowed-Held, 
judicial review of administrative action in feasible where findings are based 
on no evidence or the findings are legally untenable. 
Respondent, a General Manager in appellant-company, was served with 
show-cause notice/charge sheet without any documentary support. Since all 
copies of the documents proving charges were neither made available nor 
allowed to be inspected even after repeated pleas, the respondent could not 
give an effective reply to the show-cause notice. No date, time and place was 
fixed by Inquiry Officer for hearing the matter. The Inquiry Officer furnished 
a report on the basis of the charge sheet and the relevant records without 
appointing a Presenting Officer and without affordiag an opportunity of 
hearing or even allowing any defence witnesses anJ not allowing the 
respondent to cross-examine any of the officers inspite of the request by the 
G respondent. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the respondent was directed 
by the Managing Director to produce his defence without giving permission 
to summon his defence witnesses on the date of hearing. Hearing was 
conducted and an order of termination from service was passed on the same 
day. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before High Court, which set aside 
the dismissal order on the ground of prejudice and bias resulting in 
H 
248 
... 
KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. v. G.S. PANT 
249 
miscarriage of justice. Hence this appeal by the employer. 
A 
The respondent contended that the Managing Director, on account of 
personal vendetta, held an enquiry without following proper procedure and 
termination order was passed therleon. There was non-compliance of the 
doctrine of natural justice and the order of termination suffers from bias and 
malice. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is now well settled that mere general statements will not 
be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent 
evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact C 
there existed a bias which resulted in miscarriage of justice. While it is true 
that legitimate indignation does not fall within the am bit of malicious act, in 
almost all legal enquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all-
important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with 
intentional act without cause or excuse. 1255-F, G) 
D 
1.2. The Managing Director admittedly was not welldisposed towards 
the respondent by reason wherefor, the respondent was denuded of the financial 
power as also the administrative management of the department. It is the 
same Managing Director who levels charges against the respondent and is 
the person who appoints the Inquiry Officer, but affords a pretended hearing E 
himself and communicates the order of termination on the same day, the 
chain is complete: Prejudice apparent: Bias as stated stands proved. The 
concept of 'Bias' has had a steady refinement with the changing structure 
of the society. Modernisation of the society, with the passage of time, has its 
due impact on the concept of Bias as well. (265-B-CJ 
F 
S Parthasarthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974) 3 SCC 459, referred to. 
Jone Bros. (Hunstanton) v. Steven, 11955) 1 Q.B. 275; Franklin v. 
Minister of Town and Country Planning, (1948) AC 87; Reg. v. Bow Street 
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), 
(2000) 1 AC 119; Reg. v. Gough, (1993) AC 646; Dimes case, 3 House of G 
Lords Cases 759; Re. J.R.L., Ex parte C.J.L., (1986) 161 CLR 342; Re. 
Ebner, (1999) 161 A.L.R. 557 and President of the Republic of South Africa 
v. South African Rugby Football Union, (1999) 4 S.A. 147, referred to. 
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary - 5th Editi

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