IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6934 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.09.2010 Raja Ram Godara ........Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baldev Singh Balhara, Advocate for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(Oral) While serving as E.O.-cum-Secretary, Marketing Committee, Dharsul, petitioner was served with a Charge-sheet dated 27.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) and asked to submit his reply. Petitioner has submitted his reply. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the reply, appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 17.08.2007 (Annexure P-2) holding petitioner guilty of two out of three charges. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report, issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner proposing to impose penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. On consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice, the Disciplinary Authority, vide his order dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P-5) imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect as proposed in the Show Cause Notice. It is relevant to note that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner was Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural CWP No.6934 of 2009 -2- Marketing Board, Panchkula and Ram Niwas was holding the post of Chief Administrator, who imposed the penalty upon the petitioner. Under Rule 9(1)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board is the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the petitioner was considered by the Board in its meeting No.183 held on 19.08.2008. The Board rejected the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority (Chief Administrator), vide Agenda Item No.6, which reads as under:- “Item No.6 Appeal filed by Shri Raja Ram Godara, R.O.- cum-Secretary, Market Committee against the orders of the Chief Administrator Board dated 30.01.2008. Considered and rejected being a case of tempering of record.” The Chief Administrator by virtue of his office happens to be one of the Member of the Board at the relevant time when the Agenda Item No.6 was considered by the Board and Chief Administrator also participated in the proceedings. Thus, the Chief Administrator, who had imposed the punishment upon the petitioner being disciplinary authority also sat as one of the member of the Appellate Authority when the petitioner's appeal was considered by the Board (Appellate Authority). The short grievance of the petitioner is that the Disciplinary Authority has also performed the role of the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal of the petitioner. Even though there were other members in the Board when the appeal of the petitioner was considered, the fact remains that the Disciplinary Authority also participatory in the meeting of the Appellate Authority when the petitioner's appeal was considered. As a matter of fact, he should have recused himself when the appeal of the petitioner was taken up by the Board, which does not seems to have happened. CWP No.6934 of 2009 -3- It is argued on behalf of the respondents that since there were four other members of the Board and thus the presence of the Chief Administrator had has no impact on the decision of the Board. It is cardinal principle of law that the justice should not only be done but must appear to have been done. It is equally a settled preposition of the Administrative law that no person can be judge on his own cause. A constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case A.K.Kraipak Versus Union of India, 1970 (S.C.) 150 has held that no person can be judge in his own cause. It has been further held that likelihood of the bias is also a relevant consideration. In the present cae, the punishing authority has acted as Appellate Authority as well while participating in the Agenda Item where the appeal of the petitioner was considered by the Board. In view of the above reasons, this petition is allowed. Impugned order of the Appellate Authority (Agenda Item No.6) dated 19.08.2008 in the meeting No.183 of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board is hereby quashed. The case of the petitioner is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration. The present Board shall decide the appeal of the petitioner by passing a speaking order. 27.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes