RATTAN LAL SHARMA versus MANAGING COMMITTEE, DR. HARI RAM (CO-EDUCATION)HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_ .. 
RATTAN LAL SHARMA 
A 
v. 
MANAGING COMMITTEE, DR. HARi RAM (CO-EDUCATION) 
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS. 
., 
[M.N. VENKA TACHALIAH CJ. AND G.N. RAY J.] 
B 
MAY 14, 1993 
Nawral Justice-Bias-Reasonable apprehension of bias- Member of 
enquiry committee deposing in support of a charge on behalf of 
administration-Held, it is a flagrant violation of principles of natural 
j11stice-Ne1110 Debet essejudex in propria cause-Punjab Aided Schools (SeCll-
C 
rity of Service) Act, 1969, S.3, 
The appellant, appointed Principal of Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) 
Higher Secondary School, was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet 
containing.12 charges issued to him. Charge No.12 accused him of use of an 
unaccounted sum of Rs. 129.37, gil'en to him by Maru Ram, teacher-in-
charge of amalgamated fund. 
The enquiry committee constituted comprised 3 members, of which the 
said Maru Ram was a member. Maru Ram deposed as a witness for the 
administration in support of charge no. 12. The appellant's objection to the 
inclusion ofMaru Ram on the enquiry committee was O\'erruled, and he was 
found guilty of some of the charges including the said charge and the 
Managing Committee proposed to dismiss him from service. 
The appellant's application for inspection of documents to enable him 
to make his representation before the Deputy Commissioner-the confirm-
ing authority under S.3(2) of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) 
Act, 1969-was rejected by the Managing Committee, the Deputy Commis-
sioner and the Commissioner. 
D 
E 
F 
The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing 
G 
the enquir~· report and the orders passed by the Managing Committee, the 
Deput~·.Commissioner and the Commissioner. 
The Managing Committee, opposing the petition, contended that the 
enquiry committee was not partial or inimical towards the appellant. It was 
H 
863 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993) 3 S.C.R. ~ 
contended that Maru Ram was the only teacher member of the Managing 
Committee other than the appellant himself; therefore only Maru Ram could 
be taken in the enquiry committee as a representative of the teacher·s' union. 
It was further contended that though the application for inspection had been 
made after his dismissal, he had not been refused permission for inspection; 
he had been asked to indicate the rules under which he could see the fde. 
A Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the 
petition on the ground that the departmental proceeding was vitiated by the 
flagrant violation of natural justice. Since one of the members of the Manag-
ing Committee acted both as a Judge and as a witness to prove one. of the 
charges against the appellant despite the objections made by the appellant 
against the inclusion of such member in the committee, the en.tire enquirJ' 
proceeding was vitiated. He held that the bias continued and percolated to the 
entire proceeding and should not be restricted to char·ge no .. 12. Since the 
enquiry report was required to be considered by the Deputy Commissioner 
for the purpose of affirming the proposed order of dismissal, the fact of bias 
and prejudice was required to be considered and the appellant was not 
debarred from raising such vital plea of bias in the writ proceeding. The 
decision arrived at on the basis of an illegal and biased enquiry could not be 
sustained. 
On appeal, the Division Bench reserved the order of the Single Judge. It 
E 
held that the plea of bias was vague; that the appellant had waived it by not 
raising it specificall~· before the Deputy Commissioner .and Commissioner, 
and that as the Deputy Commissioner was not influenced by charge no.'12 
only but was im'pressed with some other charge, no interference with the 
impugned order was called for. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : 1. In Administrative Law, Rules of natural justice are founda-
tional and fundamental concepts and the law is now well settled that the 
principles of natural justice are part of the legal and judicial procedures. 
G 
(871-E) 
Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning [1947] 1 ALL ER 
289; Kislian Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta [1961] 3 SCR 
135; Breen\'. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971] All ER 1148; Maneka 
Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621; State of Orissa v. Bina-pani Dei 
H 
(19.87]2SCR 625andA.K. Kraipak v.Unionoflndia& Ors. [1970'] l SCR457, 
--
.. 
-
-
RA TIAN LAL i·. MANAGING COi\,!M

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