IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3776 of 2009 Sanjay Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 15.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner, a Nazir in the Welfare Department at the office of CDPO at Purnea, was placed under suspension on 29.3.2007. A memo of seven charges were framed against him. The enquiry report indicted him of charge 4, 5 & 7 but exonerated him of charge 1, 2 & 6. During the departmental enquiry the petitioner had raised an objection of „Bias‟ against the Enquiry Officer on the ground that charge no. 7 which related to non compliance of an official communication issued by the Enquiry Officer in his administrative capacity. There is no material in the counter affidavit to demonstrate that this objection came to be ever disposed. Annexure „E‟ to the counter affidavit is only a reply of the Enquiry Officer addressed to the disciplinary authority denying that he was biased. The petitioner preferred a Memo of Appeal in which he took a specific ground that the author of charge no. 7 was the Enquiry Officer himself. The Appellate Authority gave it a short shrift and did not even discuss it much less consider it while rejecting the appeal on other grounds. In this manner the order of punishment for censure, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and that nothing was to be paid during suspension except subsistence allowance came to be passed on 18.7.2008 originally. Subsequently on 18.7.2009 in view of the punishment, proceedings have been initiated for recovery of Rs. 3,230/- from him. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer could not be a judge in his own cause. Counsel for the State sought to urge that the very exoneration of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer on some of the charges was enough evidence of absence of „bias‟. From the pleadings of the parties it is no more in controversy that the Enquiry Officer was the same individual who had issued direction dated 10.1.2007 and violation of which was the subject matter of charge no. 7. “Bias‟ is always question of fact. There can be a mere apprehension of bias. There can be actual bias. There can also be cases were from the facts of a particular case serious possibility of a bias cannot be ruled out. The bias again may be official or personal. One of the basic tenets of the principle of natural justice is that no one can be a judge of his own cause. Equally old is the adage that justice must not only be done but must appear to have been done. The Court is satisfied that no further discussion is required of the reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the petitioner. Reasonableness of the apprehension is an issue which shall depend on the facts of each case. The standard of test shall be from the point of view of an ordinary reasonable man‟s thinking in the normal course of human behaviour and conduct given normal human behaviour. No further discussion is required that confidence of a delinquent is bound to be shaken when he perceives the possible injustice and from a prudent person‟s point of view his apprehension cannot be rejected as fanciful. The Enquiry Officer cannot be a judge of his own case whether the petitioner had behaved deviantly. 3 Despite the issuing having been specifically raised in the appeal, it has not been considered. No useful purpose is going to be served by remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority. In the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 539 it has been observed at paragraph 29 as follows:- “29. Thus, the legal position emerges that if a person appears as a witness in disciplinary proceedings, he cannot be an enquiry officer nor can he pass the order of punishment as a disciplinary authority. This rule has been held to be sacred. An apprehension of bias operates as a disqualification for a person to act as adjudicator. No person can be a judge in his own cause and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true. Anyone who has personal interest in the disciplinary proceedings must keep himself away from such proceedings. The violation of the principles of natural justice renders the order null and void.” The order of punishment dated 15.9.2008/18.7.2008 and the appellate order dated 26.2.2009 as also the proceeding for any recovery dated 18.7.2009 are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority if he so desires to proceed afresh by appointment of another Enquiry Officer. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)