LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus SANJAY JETHI AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 16 S.C.R. 495 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. SANJAY JETH! AND ANOTHER (CIVIL· APPEAL NO. 891-t OF 2012) OCTOBER 18, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] A . B Armed Forces Rules, 1954 - rr. 177, 179 and 180 - Armed Forces Tribunal - Tribunal setting aside the decision rendered by the Additional Court of Inquiry and consequential C action taken or orders passed pursuant to the said order against first respondent and directing to convene a fresh Court of Inquiry (CO/) with a different Presiding Officer and other independent members - Propriety - Held: On facts, proper - What really weighed with the Tribunal while passing the D impugned order was that such members constituted the CO! who were biased or reasoned to be biased and such bias was discernible - In quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority empowered to decide a dispute between the contesting parties has to be free from bias - When free from bias is E mentioned, it means there should be absence of conscious or unconscious prejudice to either of the parties - In the case at hand, the Technical Members of the Tribunal had compiled the documents, · adopted the methodology, made observations, drawn inferences and expressed the view and, F above all, they had prepared the report which was brought on record as a document- To say, they had not played any role would tantamount to blinking at reality - Their inclusion as the Technical Members was not legally permissible - Even applying the rigorous substantive test, a case of prejudice G came into full play in the case at hand - Once a COi has been constituted to inquire into the allegations relating to a person's character and military reputation subject to the Act it should not be done by the persons who have expressed their views 495 H 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A in writing behind the back of the person and assumed the role of the recommending authority which is statutory in nature to take disciplinary action - Law does not countenance the same - Also, in the fitness of things, the Presiding Officer should have recused himself to preside over the CO/ since his 9 inclusion in the CO/ had been objected to, on an earlier occasion, yet he was allowed to continue and was not changed - Natural justice - Bias. Armed Forces Rules, 1954 - r.180 - Court of Inquiry C (CO/) - What r. 180 postulates - Held: r. 180 has a binding effect on the CO/ - The Rule provides for procedural safeguards regard being had to the fact that a person whose character and military reputation is likely to be affected is in a position to offer his explanation and in the ultimate eventuate may not be required to face disciplinary action - Thus D understood, the language employed in r. 180 postulates of a fair, just and reasonable delineation -Duty of the authorities to ensure that there is proper notice to the person concerned and he is given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and, most importantly, nothing should take place behind his E back. Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - s. 14 - Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the tribunal in service matters - Held: Tribunal required to decide both questions of law and facts F that may be raised before it and conferred powers to deal with the cases in promptitude - Promptitude does not ostracize or drive away the apposite exposition of facts and necessary ratiocination - A seemly depiction of factual score, succinct analysis of facts and law, pertinent and cogent reasoning in G support of the view expressed having due regard to the rational methodology, are imperative. H Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Bias - Effect of - Held: Bias is an insegregable facet of the concept of natural JUStice as a genus - Question of bias would arise depending UNION OF INDIA v. SANJAY JETHI 497 on the facts and circumstances of the case - Challenge of A bias, when sustained, makes the whole proceeding or order a nullity, the same being coram non-judice. The legal propriety of the judgment passed by the Arnied Forces Tribunal setting aside the decision rendered by the Additional Court of Inquiry (COi) and consequential action taken or orders passed pursuant to the said order against the first respondent and directing B to convene a fresh Court of Inquiry (COi) with a different Presiding Officer and other independent members, was C called in question in the present appeal. Four reasons weighed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.