IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7761 of 1994 Date of decision: 17th October, 2008 Baldev Singh Rathore … Petitioner Versus Punjab School Education Board and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed by Baldev Singh Rathore, who was appointed as Clerk in the office of respondent – Punjab School Education Board, on 4th September, 1978. In the year 1990, petitioner was transferred from Conduct Branch to Examination Branch-II. He submitted his joining report on 25th May, 1990 and as per his averments, he really started working on 28th May, 1990. On 20th August, 1990, he was placed under suspension. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order (Annexure P-10) passed by the Chairman of Punjab School Education Board, wherein it was found as under: “1. Sh.Baldev Singh Rathore:- 1. Sh.B.S. Rathore, Clerk, (Exam-2) (Under suspension) in collusion with his second man Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Restorer (under suspension) tried to give undue advantage to one Roll No. 876500, Baljinder Kaur D/o Sh.Jaswant Singh, whose particulars are not entered in the cut list/ result sheet nor did she appear in Civil Writ Petition No.7761 of 1994 the examination and the above mentioned Roll No. was never even allotted by the office, by getting her result declared as R.L.E. in Senior Secondary Certificate Part-2 examination March, 1990. 2. By doing so Sh.Baldev Singh Rathore misused his position with ill intention and deceived the office.” On the basis of order (Annexure P-10), the petitioner wsa dismissed from service. Mr. B.S. Sidhu appearing for the petitioner has stated that aggrieved against the order of dismissal, petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was to be decided by the Board consisting various members. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure P-14, wherein, the meeting of the appellate authority was presided over by Mr.Har Narinder Singh, Chairman of Punjab School Education Board. Mr.Sidhu has made twofold submission. Firstly, it has been urged that the impugned order was passed by the Chairman and the Chairman was acting as a Judge of his own cause, when he was presiding over the Board meeting. It has been stated that a grave prejudice has been caused as the order of the Chairman was subject matter before the appellate authority, i.e. Board and the Board was presided over by the Chairman. His second submission is that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not a speaking order and has not taken into consideration the various grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal. Notice of motion was issued. In the writ petition, a specific ground was taken in peculiar facts of the case. It will be apposite here to reproduce ground No.(xix) forming part of para 18 of the writ petition. The same reads as under: 2 Civil Writ Petition No.7761 of 1994 “18. (xix) because that regulation 11 of Punjab School Education Board Business Regulations reads as under:- ‘11.- The Chairman, or in his absence the Vice- Chairman, shall preside at every meeting of the Board provided that if the Vice-Chairman is also absent, the members present at a meeting shall elect from amongst themselves a member to preside at that meeting.’ Earlier, in other similarly situated cases the Chairman, left the meeting and in his place Vice-Chairman or the Secretary Education Department presided over the meeting. To prove this contention, a true translation copy of the resolution of the Board in Shri Hari Singh’s case is attached as Annexure P-16. However, in the present case, the Chairman, who was the Punishing Authority, presided over and participated in the meeting when appeal was decided.” In response to the notice of motion, written statement has been filed by the respondent – Punjab School Education Board. In reply to the specific averments, made in ground No. (xix) reproduced above, in the reply, it has been submitted as under: “18. (xix) In reply to this para, it is submitted that the appeal of the petitioner was decided not by Chairman rather it was a unanimous decision of the Board.” Nobody has caused appearance for Punjab School Education Board to controvert the submissions made by Mr.Sidhu. It is settled principle of natural justice that nobody can be a Judge of his own cause. The impugned order was passed by the Chairman and he had presided over the Board meeting, participated in the deliberations of the Board, where appeal of the petitioner was being decided. A grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. At this stage, I need not entertain the second submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority had not passed a well reasoned speaking order, as I intend to 3 Civil Writ Petition No.7761 of 1994 remand the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter again. Needless to say that this time, the Chairman of the Board will not preside over the meeting of the Board, rather the meeting would be presided over by the Vice-Chairman or any other senior member of the Board. Accordingly, order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-14) is set aside and Appellate Authority is directed to formulate fresh opinion in view of the observations made above. Writ petition is accordingly disposed off. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may substantiate his appeal, already pending, by taking additional grounds. Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal of the petitioner within six months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 17, 2008. rps 4