STATE OF PUNJAB versus V.K. KHANNA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 30-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
V.K. KHANNA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.) 
Administrative Law: 
"Bias" and "malice"-Tests to determine-Held: The test is whether 
C there is a real danger of bias not a mere apprehension-'Bias' is included 
within a broader purview of 'malice'-Administrative action-'Bias'-Chief 
Secretary referred two cases to CBI with prior approval of the then Chief 
Minister-With the Change of Government new CM withdrew the cases and 
Chief Secretary charged with ma/a fide, lack of fair play etc.-Notification 
D alleged to be issued in undue haste-In spite of declaration of Election, Chief 
Secretary alleged to have obtained approval with back date-Held: Issuance 
of notification not in violation of Rules of Business-No evidence of ill will 
or spite or personal vendetta-Hence, Chief Secretary is not guilty of ma/a 
fide or malicious conduct. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 226-Discip/inary proceedings-Initial stages of-Interference 
with-Held: In the event of malice or ma/a fide motive or bias, court is 
justified in interfering at the earliest stage. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
"Bias", "malice" and "malafide "-Meaning of-In the context of 
Administrative Law. 
The respondent, a former state Chief Secretary, referred two cases in 
G respect of his senior colleagues to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBn 
with the prior approval of the then Chief Minister. With the change in 
Government, the new CM withdraw the said cases and charge-sheeted the 
respondent with ma/a fide intention, lack of fair play etc. 
The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative 
H Tribunal challenging the aforesaid charge-sheet, which was dismissed as being 
200 
STATE v. V.K. KHANNA 
201 
premature. However, the High Court allowed the appeal and held that the A 
respondent was proceeded against in a high-handed, arbitrary and Mala fide 
manner. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the respondent 
processed the two cases with undue haste and undue interest not actuated by 
the nature of cases; that the issuance of notifications referring the two cases B 
to CBI was in violations of the Rules of Business; and that in spite of 
declaration of elections the respondent obtained the approval of the then CM 
with back date. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: I.I. Whereas fairness is synonymous with reasonableness-
bias stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word 
'malice' which in common acceptation means and implies 'spite' or 'ill will'. 
One redeeming feature in the matter of attributing bias or malice 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 records to D 
come to the conclusion as to whether in fact, there was existing a bias or a 
mala fide move, which results in the miscarriage of justice. In almost all legal 
enquiries, 'intention as distinguished from motive is the all important factor' 
and in common parlance a malicious act stands equated with an intentional 
act without just cause or excuse. 1204-H; 205-A, BJ 
E 
Kumaon Manda/ Vikas Nigam v. Girija Shankar Pant JT. (2000) Suppl. 
II 206; S.Parthasarthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 11974) 3 SCC 459; Jones 
Brothers (Hunstanton) Ltd. v. Stevens, (1995) 1 QB 275; Lumlev v. Gve, 2 E 
& B 216 and Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, (1948) AC 
87, referred to. 
F 
Bromage v. Prosser, (1825) IC & P 673; Metropolitan Properties Co. 
(FGC) Ltd. v. Lannon, 11968) 3 WLR 694; R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan 
Stipendiary Magistrate, Exparte Pinochet Ugarte, (No.2) [2000) 1 AC 119; 
Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties ltd., (2000) QB 451; R. v. Gough, 
(1993) AC 646; Dimes case 3 House of lords Cases 759; re JRL Ex Parle G 
CJ/, (1986116 CLR 342; President of the Republic of South Africa v. South 
African Rugby Football Union, (199) 4 SA 147 and Vakuta v. Kelly, (1989) 
167 CLR 568, cited. 
1.2. The test, therefore, is as to whether there is a mere apprehension 
of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary 
conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise 
that thue is existing a real danger of bias, administrative action cannot be 

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