1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4188 OF 2007 Prabhakar Jagguji Rangari ...Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Sanghraj Rupwate for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Chavan i/by M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates for Respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Bhavesh Parmar for Respondent No. 3 Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: JUNE 30, 2009 P.C.:- In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of the departmental inquiry started against him by 2 respondent No. 2. He also sought quashing of an order of promotion dated 25th May, 2007, by which respondent No.3 had been promoted to the post of the Additional Chief Engineer, Pune. 2. When the petition was filed, this Court had ordered stay of promotion of respondent No.3, and as on today, respondent No. 3 has not been promoted. 3. The promotion of respondent No.3 has been challenged on various grounds. One of the grounds is of bias. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 himself was a member of the Selection Committee which selected officers for different posts, including the post of Additional Chief Engineer. This has been disputed in the counter- affidavit, and it has been stated that though respondent No. 3 was member of the Selection Committee, but since many posts had to be filled in, he was part of the Committee which selected people for the posts other than the Additional Chief Engineer. 3 4. The minutes of the meeting have been produced before us. They are on page 67. We have seen that the minutes for promotion to First, Second and Third Grade Posts of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation recorded in one meting, which was attended by all the members of the committee, including respondent No. 3. The committee was selected by the Minister for Industries, and one of the members was Shri N.D. Gadge. Since the minutes of the meeting were recorded with respect to the promotion of respondent No. 3 also by the same Committee, of which respondent No. 3 was himself a member, it becomes difficult to believe that there was no bias. Even if it is accepted that when the Additional Chief Engineer was selected, respondent No. 3 was not the member of the Selection Committee, but at the same time, it is also a fact that he was part of the Selection Committee for other types of posts, which Committee also eventually selected him. The minutes even do not disclose as to who were the members of the committee who selected respondent No. 3. 5. Law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K.Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1969 (2) Supreme Court 4 Cases 262. This was a case where a Selection Committee was constituted for inclusion of State Forest Officers into Indian Forest Service. The Chief Conservator of Forests was member of the Committee, though he was himself a candidate for being empanelled as a member of the Indian Forest Service. He participated in interviewing other candidates, but at the time his turn came, the other committee members deliberated. The Supreme Court considered this situation, and held:- “15. It is unfortunate that Naqishbund 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 Naqishbund 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 his participation in the deliberations of the selection board there was a conflict between his interest and duty. Under those circumstances it is difficult to 5 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. We agree with the learned Attorney-General that a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct. It was in the interest of Naqishbund to keep out his rivals in order to secure his position from further challenge. Naturally he was also interested in safeguarding his position while preparing the list of selected candidates.” 6. Therefore, on this ground alone, the selection of respondent No.3 has to be set aside, and accordingly, the order promoting him is set aside. 7. Coming to the departmental inquiry, it is submitted that it has been initiated by the Chief Executive Officer, who is not having jurisdiction to initiate an inquiry against Class I and Class II officers. This has been laid down by the judgment of this Court dated 10th March, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 9115 of 2007 (V.K. Sable v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors.). Following the same judgment, we find that the initiation of the inquiry against the petitioner was by a non-competent officer. 6 8. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that on 19th February, 1999, the Board of Directors of respondent No.1- M.I.D.C., in its meeting, had passed a resolution that in respect of officers in Groups ‘A’ and ‘B’, the Competent Authority would be the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.). That is a subsequent development, but the fact remains that when the C.E.O. Initiated inquiry against the petitioner, the C.E.O. Had no jurisdiction to do so. Following the earlier judgment of this Court, we set aside the order initiating the inquiry against the petitioner. However, this will not be an impediment for the respondents to start an inquiry afresh in accordance with law against the petitioner, if they so desire. 9. We have also been told that subsequent to the filing of this petition, the petitioner was also promoted by the Selection Committee, and respondent No.3 was also subsequently promoted. The order regarding respondent No.3’s promotion was not implemented because of an order of this Court, and the petitioner could not have been promoted because of pending inquiry. Since the inquiry has been quashed, and the selection of respondent No.3, made subsequent to the first selection, is not under challenge, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders. 7 10. The Writ Petition, with the above direction, is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.