1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -31
151. Appointment of Inquiry Office : A
person who is biased against the charged employee is not eligible to hold the
inquiry [Tilak Chand v. Kamla Prasad Shukla, (1995) Supp.1 SCC 21 (on p.25)].
On the same principle, a complainant cannot be a member of the inquiry
committee [Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-ed.)
Higher Secondary School, (1993)4 SCC 10, para 12]. Similarly, a person who is a
witness in a case cannot function as an inquiring authority too [State of U.P.
v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86).
152. While pecuniary interest, howsoever
small, shall disqualify the inquiry officer from deciding the matter (see Manak
Lal v, Dr. Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425], the test applied in the case of personal
interest is that there must be a real likelihood of bias; whether the subject
was really prejudiced or not, not being the relevant question [Manak Lal v. Dr.
Singhvi, supra). In Rattan Lal Sharma case, supra, the Supreme Court stated the
principle in the following words :
153. “For appreciating a case of personal bias
or bias to the subject matter the test is whether there was a real likelihood
of a bias even though such bias has not in fact taken place.”
Thus, if a reasonable man would think on basis
of existing circumstances that he is likely to be prejudiced that is sufficient
to quash the decision [S. Parthasarthi v. State of A.P., AIR 1973 SC 2701].
However, there must be real likelihood of bias. Surmise or conjecture would not
be enough. The term real likelihood of bias means at least substantial
likelihood of bias (De Smith in his book - "Judicial Review of
Administrative Action” (1980) at p.262. quoted in Rattan Lal Sharma case,
supra. In K. Andazhagan v. Supdt. of Police, 2003 AIR SCW 6468, observed in
para 31 (on p. 6481) – "It is important to note that in such a case the
question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is
whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in
the mind of the petitioner."
154. Similarly, the inquiry is vitiated if it is held by an officer who had prejudged the issues [Narayana Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 1958 A.P. 636].
Post a Comment