IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11969 of 2007 Date of Decision: 6.10.2010. Shri Ghansham Dass Taneja --Petitioner Versus Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The petitioner herein while working as Assistant was served with a charge sheet dated 14.7.1997. After considering his reply the disciplinary authority decided to hold an inquiry. The Inquiry Committee/Officer submitted its report dated 8.8.1998 holding the petitioner guilty of various charges. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 14.9.1998 and on consideration of the reply of the petitioner dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 21.4.1999. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. During the pendency of the appeal petitioner filed CWP No. 17206 of 1999 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 14.12.1999 directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of order. It seems that the Executive Council, the appellate authority constituted a committee of three officers of the university to give personal hearing to the petitioner. The committee submitted its report (Annexure P-2) holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct and rejected CWP. No. 11969 of 2007 -2- the appeal vide order dated 5.4.2000. Petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 19.4.2000 about the decision of the Executive Council of the university rejecting the appeal. Petitioner's request for review also came to be declined vide communication dated 9.1.2006. The petitioner, thereafter, served a legal notice asking for supply of copy of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor of the university. In response to the petitioner's notice copy of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor was supplied to him vide letter dated 16.3.2006. On being furnished the copy of the order of Vice Chancellor the petitioner preferred another appeal which has been decided by the Executive Council vide the impugned order dated 8.5.2007 (Annexure P-27). Apart from the other grounds the thrust of the petitioner's argument is that the appellate authority has passed a totally non-speaking and cryptic order without recording any reason enabling the petitioner to know the ground for rejection of the appeal. I have perused the impugned order (Annexure P-27) which is a resolution adopted by the Executive Council. The same reads as under:- “ Shri Ghansham Dass Taneja was afforded personal hearing. After having discussed his pleadings made orally and the written statement submitted by him, it was resolved that the appeal of Shri Ghansham Dass Taneja be not accepted and he be informed accordingly.” One of the ground urged in the petition is that the Vice Chancellor in his capacity as a disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner and the Vice Chancellor was also part of the Executive Council when the appeal of the petitioner was considered by the Executive Council of the university. This fact is neither disputed rather it is admitted that the Vice Chancellor was part of the Executive Council, who considered the CWP. No. 11969 of 2007 -3- appeal of the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that no one can be Judge of his own cause. In a case reported as AIR 1970 SC 150, titled as A.K. Kraipak and others Vs. Union of India and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “ 15. It is unfortunate that Naquishbund was appointed as one of the members of the selection board. It is true that ordinarily the Chief Conservator of Forests in a State should be considered as the most -appropriate person to be in the selection board. He must be expected to know his officers thoroughly, their weaknesses as well as their strength. His opinion as regards their suitability for selection to the All India Service is entitled to great weight. But then under the circumstances it was improper to have included Naquishbund as a member of the selection board. He was one of the persons to be considered for selection. It is against all canons of justice to make a man judge in his own cause. It is true that he did not participate in the deliberations of the committee when his name was considered. But then the very fact that he was a member of the selection board must have had its own impact on the decision of the selection board. Further admittedly he participated in the deliberations of the selection board when the claims of his rivals particularly that of Basu was considered. He was also party to the preparation of the list of selected candidates in order of preference. At every stage of this participation in the deliberations of the selection board there was a conflict between his interest and duty. Under those circumstances it is difficult to believe that he could have been impartial. The real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased.” It is true that the Executive Council is a statutory body and Vice Chancellor ex-officio is head of this body. He is supposed to chair all the meetings of the Executive Council, however, one thing cannot be lost sight of that the Executive Council performs dual functions. CWP. No. 11969 of 2007 -4- (1) As an Appellate Authority against the decisions of the Vice Chancellor. (2) As a decision making authority in respect to other affairs of the university. (3) Where the Executive Council acts as an Appellate Authority in respect to the decisions of the Vice Chancellor, it does not sound prudent and may be against the propriety and in contravention of the principles of natural justice that the Vice Chancellor sits as a part of the Appellate Authority while his own decisions are under consideration and scrutiny. The probability to which human beings are naturally prone to in such cases cannot be eliminated. There is a likelihood of bias in decision making of the Appellate Authority. It is not possible to actually impute motive and to say with certainty that the Vice Chancellor and the members of the Executive Council would take decision with any bias but even a remote possibility of such happening has to be eliminated. This is the cardinal principle of natural justice. It may be pertinent to note that the bias has various aspects. There can be personal bias with a person, bias in the subject matter means a person may be interested in the issue before him and official bias. Where the person may not have any personal interest in the issue or has no concern with the person against whom the decision is to be taken but there is a probability of an official bias. A person sitting in appeal over his own decision may not like his decision to be over set. The Vice Chancellor as disciplinary/punishing authority could not have been part of the appellate body notwithstanding the fact that he heads the Executive Council of the university. As a matter of fact the Vice Chancellor should have recused himself from the appellate body when the CWP. No. 11969 of 2007 -5- case of the petitioner was considered. Without going into other aspects of the matter for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has reserved his right to argue, if, he is aggrieved by the fresh order to be passed by the appellate authority, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the appellate authority (Annexure P-27) is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal on merits. It is further made clear that the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-university will not be part of the appellate authority when the case of the petitioner is taken up for consideration. It is also directed that the petitioner shall be granted personal hearing by the appellate body before passing the final order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 6.10.2010. lucky Whether to be reported? Yes.