Disciplinary Authority Acting As Judge, Prosecutor & Enquiry Officer Creates Apprehension Of Bias: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that when the Disciplinary Authority assumes multiple roles in departmental proceedings and conducts the enquiry in a manner suggestive of pre-determined bias, the entire process stands vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has held that disciplinary proceedings are vitiated where the Disciplinary Authority acts as the Enquiry Officer and simultaneously assumes the role of prosecutor, thereby creating a reasonable apprehension of bias against the delinquent employee.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner, an Enforcement Inspector in the Jammu Municipal Corporation, along with the departmental enquiry proceedings culminating in the impugned order.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed: “the aforesaid circumstances clearly go on to show that respondent No. 2, while acting as the Disciplinary Authority, Inquiry Officer and the prosecutor rolled into one, has approached the whole issue with a premeditated mind to somehow implicate the petitioner… the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted… reflects a reasonable apprehension of bias.”
Senior Advocate Abhinav Sharma, with Advocate Abhirash Sharma, appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Mayank Gupta represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner, serving as an Enforcement Inspector in the Jammu Municipal Corporation, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on allegations of dereliction of duty in failing to act against unauthorised constructions within his jurisdiction.
It was the case of the petitioner that although a preliminary enquiry had been conducted and a separate Enquiry Officer had initially been appointed, the Disciplinary Authority subsequently initiated formal departmental proceedings under Rule 33 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and appointed herself as the Enquiry Officer.
The petitioner contended that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, as he was not permitted to cross-examine witnesses, relevant documents were not furnished to him, and the Disciplinary Authority acted in multiple capacities, thereby prejudicing the proceedings.
The respondents contended that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with rules, that adequate opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner, and that the findings of misconduct were based on official records and material collected during the enquiry.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the scheme of Rule 33 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and the principles governing departmental enquiries. It was observed that although there is no absolute prohibition against the Disciplinary Authority acting as the Enquiry Officer, the manner in which such power is exercised must satisfy the test of fairness and absence of bias.
The Court noted that in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority not only acted as the Enquiry Officer but also actively participated in collecting evidence, recording statements of witnesses, and relying upon material gathered behind the back of the petitioner.
It was further observed that statements of witnesses were recorded without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them, and documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer were not supplied to him.
The Court held that such conduct transgressed the fundamental principles of natural justice. It was observed that an Enquiry Officer, being a quasi-judicial authority, must act as an independent adjudicator and cannot assume the role of a prosecutor seeking to establish charges against the delinquent.
Relying on State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010), the Court reiterated that while appointment of a Presenting Officer is not mandatory, the enquiry would stand vitiated if the Enquiry Officer conducts proceedings in a manner indicative of bias or actively attempts to prove the charges.
The Court also referred to Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) in which it was held that “if the Inquiry Officer starts acting in any other capacity and proceeds to act in a manner as if he is interested in eliciting evidence to punish an employee, the principle of bias would come into play”.
The Apex Court, in Ram Lakhan Sharma, had further held that “the question as to whether an Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as a prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of a particular case”.
On the facts of the present case, the High Court further emphasised the principle that no person should act as a judge in his own cause, holding that even a reasonable apprehension of bias is sufficient to invalidate disciplinary proceedings.
It was observed that the cumulative effect of the procedural lapses, including denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and non-supply of material documents, rendered the enquiry fundamentally unfair and legally unsustainable.
The Court also took note that the petitioner has superannuated from service during the pendency of the proceedings and held that “once the relationship of an employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation has ceased to exist, the inquiry proceedings cannot be initiated/continued afresh against him”, considering the fact that “the applicable rules do not permit initiation or continuation of enquiry proceedings against the petitioner upon his superannuation from service”.
Concluded
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order of dismissal and directed the respondents to process the case of the petitioner for the grant of pension and consequential benefits by treating him in service up to the date of his superannuation.
Cause Title: Gopal Krishan v. UT of J&K & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:828)
