Z‘ mm“““mugmuu y MM a“ 0? ‘ ”W EFMBMQGQ $ L ' MO . @ H0h¥1L M 7wc‘Q. Mg, 7W5LCCJ; Yaw; LAM 1D- Ya ~I Ami/mm PmTxom IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH 5'3”.r.‘1... ‘ 1% (Original WritJmisdiction) Amended Peition in ¥ W.P.No.: G) uéi-Ilunm/ 2009 a. w “mi‘x‘xl THE MATTERS BETWEEN: Q5 m WW PETmONERs: ————————— 1.K.K.M1sma ' S/o SE — 3'. ‘ A (A Kamalkishore,Age 44 years, PGT/SECR/MHSS/EM Bilaspur R/O Sashi Shringar E Lahé Near Railway Mahalshtra Manda1,Tikrapala/ Bilaspur (CG). 2. S.K. Singh S/O late tega Singh, PGT, SECK MHss (E/M), Bilaspur R/O Quartegs No.: 1084/4, Control Block, Railway Settlement, Bilaspul VERSUS RESPONDENTS: lUnion of India, Through gA ‘ General Manager, South East Central Railway. Address: G.M. Office, Railway Settlement,Bilaspu1-, Chhattisgarh. 2.Divisional Railway Manager S.E.C. Railway Address DRM Office , Rly. Settlement Bilaspur (C.G). 3.Sr.Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.RailWay, Address DRM Office, Rly. Settlement, Bilaspur (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f9” \\O HIGH COURT OF CHHA'I'I‘ISGARH z BILASPUR F Wn’t Peu’tion (S) No. 61 17 of2009 Petitioners K. K. Mishra 8r. another Versus Respondents Union of India others & WRIT PETITOIN UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF ’I‘HE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agm'hotri an Hon’ble Shn' Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ Shri Rahul_Jha, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Naushjna Afiin Ali, Advocate for the respondents. i ‘ 0 R D E R (oral) (Passed on this 18th day of February, 20 10) Per Satish K. Agihotri, J. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the Older dated 20th August, 2009 (Annexure P/ 1), passed by the Centml Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Camp — Bilaspur in Original Application No. 722/2008 ( K. K. Mishra 8t. another Vs. Union of India & others). 2. Facts, in nutshell, are that a depanmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners nied O.A.No. 722/2008, alleging that the Senior Divisional Personnel O$cer, who is the disciplinaiy authority in their case, has rendered himself ineligible as he was the head of the vigilance team, who investigated the case. Thereatter, he issued charge sheet. There were serious allegations of bias, raised by the petitioners, against the enquiry o$cer Shii R. V. Apotikar, Divisional Personnel onicer. 3. The Tribunal, having examined the case of the petitioners at length, set aside the enquiry conducted by Shri Apotikar and it was directed to conduct de novo enquiry by appointing another inquiry omcer, from the state of appointment of inquiry officer and providing the petitioners proper opportunity of hearing i.e. producing witnesses, cross—examination of the prosecution witnesses and placing the documents etc. in defence. It was further directed to conclude the enquiry at the earliest. If the disciplinary \wm authority had lead the vigilance beam, he has rendered himself ineligible to act as disciplinary authority. 4. Learned counsel appean'ng for the respondentslUnion of India submits that the earlier enquixy omcer has aheady been changed and in his place, one Shri J. S.‘ Sukhdev, D.P.0., Bilaspur has been appointed as Enqujxy O$cer. The earlier disciplinaxy authority namely Mr. Hafiz Mohammad, has also been transfened and a new Senior Divisional Personnel omcer has assumed the charge of the o$ce and at present acting as disciplinary authority. Even otherwise, it has been made clear that the persons who were in any way concerned with the raid may not be associamd, either as enquiry omcer or disciplinary authority. It is well settled principle of law that a vigilance o$cer, if becomes disciplinary authority of the employee, whose case he had investigated, it would be prudent for such vim'lance omcer not to deal ’With the relevant disciplinary cases which he may have investigated as vigilance emcer. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. It is trite that a person cannot be a judge of his own case. In the case wherein the vigilance committee was led by senior D.P.0., it was held that he cannot act as disciplinary authority because he may V be prejudiced in the matter with preobsessed mind X (See Cantonment Executive omcer and another Vs. Vijay D. Wani and othersl) 7. The Supreme Court in Cantonment Executive Omcer and another observed as under : ‘15 7 "7. Therefore, the ratio of all these cases is that a person cannot be a Judge in his oWn case. Once the disciplinary committee hnds the incumbent guilty; they cannot sit in the judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them. The objectivity is the hallmark of a judicial system in our country. The very fact is that the disciplinary committeewho found the respondent (herein) guilty participated in decision making process for finding the respondent (herein) guilty and to dismiss him mom service is bias which is apparent 85 real. Consequently, the View taken by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be faulted.” l 2008 (4) seJ 94 It is wellmigh establishsd that this Court in exercise of its supervisoxy jurisdiction should rem itself mm interfering with the order passed by the Courts belcw, except in such cases where pelversity, illegality, irregulality or jmisdic1iona1 error is writ large on the face of the Iecord, which is not in the present case. For the reasons mentioned herein above, we do not nnd any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the petition is dismissed. The directions issued by the Tribunal are maintained. No order, asto costs. W ’ Hs‘d/_VV 6"*"; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava; Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Judge Ni}