THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10000 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the third respondent in issuing proceedings Rc. No.D2/401/EGS/2011, dated 30.03.2011 terminating services of petitioner as Additional Programme Officer under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in the said post. 2. The averments, in brief, of the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Additional Programme Officer on 03.05.2007 in MGNREGS by a Committee headed by the second respondent, and his services are under the control of the respondents 3 and 4. While he was working as such, the third respondent issued show-cause notice dated 09.06.2010 to the petitioner calling for his explanation by framing seven charges stating inter alia that as per his enquiry report, certain irregularities were identified. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the notice. Thereafter, the petitioner met the third respondent and sought for personal hearing requesting to supply copy of the enquiry report dated 21.05.2010 to enable him to submit proper explanation. However, without conducting a regular enquiry, the third respondent issued the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. 3. The third respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and stating that the second respondent directed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry with regard to certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, and basing on the enquiry and Vigilance and Enforcement report, the third respondent obtained note orders from the second respondent and issued a show-cause notice on behalf of the second respondent. Since the note was approved by the second respondent-District Collector, the show-cause notice was issued on behalf of the second respondent. Without filing a regular appeal provided against the termination orders, the petitioner approached this Court. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as on the date of initiation of the regular disciplinary proceedings, it is the third respondent-Project Director, who has to appoint an Enquiry Officer so as to conduct a regular departmental enquiry with regard to any misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, but instead of doing so, the third respondent himself conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the second respondent-District Collector, and that after obtaining note orders, the third respondent himself issued show-cause notice as well as termination order, and therefore, the action of the third respondent is arbitrary and volative of principles of natural justice, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that as a complaint is received by the second respondent-District Collector from one of the villagers about some serious irregularities committed by the petitioner, the second respondent directed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry and thereupon, after conducting the enquiry, the third respondent submitted a report, and after note orders, the second respondent authorized the third respondent to issue a show-cause notice and therefore there is no procedural lapse on the part of the third respondent in passing the impugned order and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Admittedly, the third respondent-Project Director conducted an enquiry with regard to certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in discharging his duties as Additional Programme Officer. Basing on the directions of the second respondent-District Collector, the third respondent conducted a preliminary enquiry and thereafter he framed as many as 7 charges. After conducting the enquiry, the third respondent issued show- cause notice and after calling for the explanation, the impugned order is passed terminating services of the petitioner as the articles of charges leveled against the petitioner are proved beyond preponderance of probability. 7. The decision maker should be under an obligation to act fairly. The decision stands to reason that if a decision maker is actually biased, the process cannot be said to be fair. It is unlawful for a decision maker to decide a case in which he was the Preliminary Enquiry Officer. The circumstances, thus, far considered, in which the decision maker is automatically disqualified, are far from exhaustive of the situations in which a perceived lack of impartiality may render his involvement unlawful. In view of the fact that the third respondent himself is the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, he ought not to have conducted the enquiry by framing articles of charges. In all fairness, he should have appointed another suitable official as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in accordance with Rules. That procedure has not been followed. So, the possibility of taking a decision on bias cannot be ruled out. Further more, he himself is the disciplinary authority who passed the impugned order. Therefore, the third respondent cannot take the role of the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority so as to take the action against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. 8. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed setting aside the impugned order. No costs. However, this order will not preclude the third respondent from appointing a suitable Enquiry Officer toconduct enquiry and take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 04.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 10000 OF 2011 04.07.2011