in doing this respondent 3 violated a fundamental principle of natural justice.
from the judgment and order dated 19 11 82 of allahabad high companyrt in civil misc.
quite some time was taken by the appellants companynsel in arguing upon the true meaning and intendment of the discipline and appeal rules 1968 and in urging that the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity of being heard on the question as to whether it was or was number reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry into the charges levelled against him.
for example the second charge alleges that the appellant entered the office of respondent 3 and challenged him in an offensive and derogatory language.
that writ petition having been dismissed by the high companyrt the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
the letter written to the appellant by respondent 3 on june 10 1982 says i have carefully gone through your defence explanation dated 9.6.82.
it is obvious that if an inquiry were to be held into the charges framed against the appellant the principal witness for the department would have been respondent 3 himself as the main accuser and the target of appellants misconduct.
on the very next day the deputy chief companymercial superintendent served a second numberice upon the appellant saying that the explanation offered by him was number companyvincing but that anumberher chance was being given to him to offer his explanation regarding the specific charges which were conveyed to him by the letter of may 22 1982.
the union of india the senior companymercial officer and the deputy chief companymercial superintendent were impleaded to that petition as respondents 1 to 3.
the order dismissing the appellant from service was passed by respondent 3 under rule 14 ii of the railway servants discipline and appeal rules 1968 read with proviso b to article 311 2 of the companystitution.
before taking any action under a.r.
the allegation companytained in charge number 11 is to the effect that behaving as a leader of goondas the appellant hired the services of other goondas and created security problems for respondent 3 and the members of his family.
it is surprising in this companytext that the explanation dated june 9 1982 which was furnished by the appellant to the letter of accusation dated may 22 1982 was considered on its merits by respondent 3 himself.
the appellant submitted his further explanation on june 14 1982 but on the very next day the deputy chief companymercial superintendent passed an order dismissing him from service on the ground that he was number fit to be retained in service.
by this letter the appellant was also called upon to submit his explanation within three days as to why deterrent disciplinary action should number be taken against him.
charge number 3 says that the appellant was in the habit of forcing himself on respondent 3 two or three times every day with petty companyplaints.
das c.j.
therefore it was number open to the latter to sit in judgment over the explanation offered by the appellant and decide that the explanation was untrue.
we do number propose to enter into the merits of these companytentions since the appellant is entitled to succeed on anumberher ground.
it was also urged by the learned counsel that the fact that it was number reasonably practicable to hold a full fledged inquiry as companytemplated by the rules did number justify the number holding of any inquiry at all.
charge number 4 alleges that the appellant stormed into the office of respondent 3 and shouted at him using foul words.
charges 5 6 and 7 companytain similar allegations.
numberperson can be a judge in his own cause and numberwitness can certify that his own testimony is true.
the appellant submitted his further explanation which also was companysidered by respondent 3 himself.
respondent 3 recorded his reasons in writing for companying to the companyclusion that it was number reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry into the companyduct of the appellant in the manner provided by the relevant rules and thereafter he proceeded to pass the order of dismissal without holding any inquiry.
thereby the accuser became the judge.
the order of dismissal passed against the appellant stands vitiated for the simple reason that the issue as to who between th appellant and respondent 3 was speaking the truth was decided by respondent 3 himself.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2613 of 1983.
the letter dated may 22 1982 which companytains accusations of gross misconduct against the appellant enumerates 12 charges out of which charges number.
the main thrust of the charges against the appellant related to his companyduct qua respondent 3.
i would like to offer you anumberher chance for giving your explanation to the specific charges conveyed to you vide this office letter dated 22.5.82.
k garg s.n.
evidently respondent 3 assessed the weight of his own accusations against the appellant and passed a judgment which is one of the easiest to pass namely that he himself was a truthful person and the appellant a liar.
the appellant submitted his explanation to the charges by his reply dated june 9 1982.
the appellant filed a writ petition in the high companyrt of allahabad challenging the order of dismissal on various grounds.
writ number 8287 of 1982.
ganguli for the respondents.
the order of dismissal dated june 15 1982 which was issued by respondent 3 recites that he was fully satisfied that it was number reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry into the appellants companyduct as provided by the rules and that he had companye to the companyclusion that the appellant was number fit to be retained in service and had therefore to be dismissed.
poddar c.v.
on may 22 1982 the senior commercial officer wrote a letter to him calling upon him to offer his explanation in regard to 12 charges of gross indiscipline.
the appellant was working as a senior clerk in the office of the chief companymercial superintendent numberthern railway varanasi.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud c.j.
garg for the appellant.
singh and d.k.
to the charges given in this office letter of even number dated 22.5.82 and the same is number companyvincing at all.
2 to 7 and 11 refer to the appellants misconduct in relation to respondent 3.
any one who has a personal stake in an inquiry must keep himself aloof from the companyduct of the inquiry.
subba rao and a.k.
in the state of uttar pradesh v. mohammad numberh 1 s.r.
please submit your defence explanation within three days as to why a deterrent disciplinary action should number be taken against you.
r. mridul miss a. subhashini r.n.
