A person cannot judge his own case, says apex court

A person cannot judge his own case, says apex court Holding the view that "a person cannot be a judge in his own case," the Supreme Court has ordered reinstatement of an employee sacked 16 years ago by the Cantonment Board, Pune. A bench of Justices A K Mathur and L S Panta while rejecting the plea of the Board that the principle of "no work no pay" should apply, ruled that aggrieved employee Vijay D Wani would be entitled to 50 per cent back wages and continuity of service. "Once the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty; they cannot sit in judgement to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them," the apex court observed while dismissing the appeal filed by the Board against a Bombay High Court judgement. The Bombay High Court had earlier passed a similar order of reinstatement with 50 per cent back wages, which was challenged by way of appeal in the apex court by the Board. Vijay, who worked as a section engineer, was sacked by the board on 25th October, 1991 on the basis of an inquiry committee report which held him guilty of preparing estimates for certain works with "total non-application of mind". The aggrieved engineer filed an appeal before the GOC-in-Chief, Southern Command, Pune who dismissed it and his second appeal before the Ministry of Defence met the same fate, following which he appealed in the High Court. While rejecting some of Vijay's arguments, the High Court however, upheld Vijay's contention that the action was vitiated as the three-member inquiry committee also participated in the deliberations of the subsequent Board meeting which voted in favour of the engineer's dismissal. The High Court asked the board to reinstate Vijay with 50 per cent back wages, following which it appealed in the apex court. Upholding the findings of the High Court, the apex court said that in the present case, members of the inquiry committee were also members of the Cantonment Board where the inquiry report was considered and decided that Vijay was guilty. The bench said the participation of the three members of the committee has led to a "real apprehension in the mind of" the employee that he will not get fair justice in the matter because the trio would be interested to see that their report is accepted. "This bias in this case cannot be said to be unreal. It is very much real and substantial one that the respondent (employee) is not likely to get a fair deal by such disciplinary committee," the apex court said. The bench cited a number of earlier judicial rulings wherein such biased inquiry had been quashed by courts. "Once the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty: they cannot sit in the judgement to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them," the apex court said while dismissing the board's appeal.

"Loved reading this piece by SANJAY DIXIT?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group