HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No.162 OF 2005 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order dated 11.08.2004 passed in W.P.No.10323 of 1996 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-3rd respondent was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the 1st respondent- S.K.R.B.R. College. On 24.02.1991 a charge memo was issued listing out allegations of mis-appropriation of college funds as enumerated in the charge memo. The appellant submitted his explanation. Another charge memo dated 01.03.1991, called as a supplementary charge memo, was issued alleging that the appellant had failed to maintain certain mandatorily maintainable registers with a view to conceal the mis-appropriation of amounts by him. The Vice President of the educational society, under whose administrative control the 1st respondent -College was functioning, was appointed as inquiry Officer. After a due process of inquiry, by proceedings of the management of the college dated 17.06.1991 the appellant was inflicted the penalty of removal from service after obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority as required under Section 79 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Regional Joint Director (for short, RJD) under Section 80 of the Act. The RJD, by order dated 28.02.1992 rejected the appeal. Therefore, the appellant approached the State Government under Section 81(3) of the Act and the State Government passed the impugned order allowing the appeal of the appellant. Against the same, the 1st respondent-College preferred Writ Petition ie., W.P.No.10325 of 1996 and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, which is in the following terms: “The order of the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.582 Education (C.E.-II) Department dated 20.05.1996 is unsustainable and it is quashed. The 1st respondent shall dispose of the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent against the order of the RJD dated 28.02.1992, on merits and consistent with the finding herein that the appointment of the Vice President of the College governing body to act as an inquiry officer is competent and the inquiry is not vitiated on that account. The appeal of the 3rd respondent shall be considered by the State Government within the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 81 of the Act as spelt out in this judgment”. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Enquiry Officer ie. the Vice President of the governing body of the 1st respondent College who is an authority superior in rank to the charged person as required under Rule 7(2) of the Rules and that the 1st respondent while acting as an appellate authority can only exercise its powers as per Section 81(3) of the Act while ignoring the power of revision exercisable by the State Government under Section 90 of the Act. Therefore, the appointment of Vice President managing the governing body as an Enquiry Officer is valid. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing for the College submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite reasonable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, charge Memo was issued on 17.02.1991 and the supplementary charge memo was also issued on 01.03.1991 and the explanation was submitted by the appellant- Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy on 11.03.1991. The proceedings of the Secretary and Correspondent, SKRBR College, Narasaraopet, while passing the order dated 17.06.1991 observed as under:- ”the competent authority, the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur by its order dated 14.06.1991 granted permission to the management to impose punishment of removal from service against Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy. The Governing Body of S.K.R.B.R.College, Narasaraopet by its resolution dated 17.06.1991 resolved to remove Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy, Junior Assistant from service with immediate effect for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds relating to teaching staff to a tune of Rs.25,864/- relating to National Savings Scheme 1987, Teachers Provident Fund and Profession Tax and also for temporary misappropriation of similar funds. Accordingly, Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy, Junior Assistant, S.K.R.B.R.College, Narasaraopet is hereby removed from service with immediate effect.” Against the order of removal dated 17.06.1991, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 81 (3) of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 and on consideration of the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.39 Education Department dated 16.2.1995 whereby it directed the management of S.K.R.B.R. College, Narasaraopet to reinstate Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy into service with immediate effect by treating the break period as duty and to pay his salary allowances from the management funds. Challenging the said G.O., the management filed the Writ Petition No.4197 of 1995. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.08.1995 “directing the Government to issue notice to both the parties and on their appearance, hear the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits within three months from the date of receipt of that order. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cantonment Executive Officer and another v Vijay D.Wani and others[1] and in paragraphs 7 and 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as under: “The question of bias is always the question of fact. The Court has to be vigilant while applying the principles of bias as it primarily depends on the facts of each case. The Court should only act on real bias not merely on likelihood of bias. In the present case, so far as the members of the Committee who conducted a disciplinary inquiry were also the members of the Cantonment Board where the report was to be considered, decided and whether to accept it or not and finding the respondent (herein) guilty or not. The very fact that these three persons who conducted inquiry were also the members of the Board and that the Board was to take a decision in the matter whether the report submitted by the enquiry committee should be accepted or not. Therefore, the participation of these three members in the Committee has given a real apprehension in the mind of the respondent that he will not get a fair justice in the matter because the three members who submitted the report would be interested to see that their report should be accepted. This bias in this case cannot be said to be unreal, it is very much real and substantial one that the respondent is not likely to get a fair deal by such disciplinary committee”. Therefore, the ratio of all these cases is that a person cannot be a Judge in his own cause. Once the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty, they cannot sit in the judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them. Objectivity is the hallmark of a judicial system in our country. The very fact that the disciplinary committee which found the respondent (herein) guilty participated in decision- making process for finding the respondent (herein) guilty and to dismiss him from service is bias which is apparent and real. Consequently, the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted”. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court (Supra), this Writ Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________​____ SANJAY KUMAR,J 19TH September, 2011. PNV [1] (2008) 12 SCC 230