Later on he was redesignated as Sectional Engineer Electrical .
The respondent was put under suspension and the Cantonment Board appointed an Enquiry Committee to enquire into the alleged misconduct of the respondent.
By a resolution dated 25.10.1991 the Cantonment Board companysidered the Enquiry Committees report and accepted it and passed the order of removal of the respondent from service.
The High Court rejected the first companytention of the respondent that all the three members of the Enquiry Committee happened to be the members of the Board in which capacity they had scrutinized, approved and accepted the estimates prepared by the respondent when the estimates were placed before the Cantonment Board.
The respondent preferred second appeal before the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, which was also dismissed on 22.12.1994.
Since they were interested in the matter, therefore, the enquiry should have been quashed on the ground of bias.
reported in 1986 4 SCC 537.
That vitiated the decision making process as all the three members of the Enquiry Committee was part of the decision making process and since they were interested to see that their report be upheld by the Committee.
Aggrieved against this order the respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Therefore, the companytention of the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner respondent herein of bias was rejected.
Secondly, it was companytended that the alleged misconduct of the respondent themselves participated in the meeting of the Cantonment Board and voted in favour of the report while companysidering the issue of inflicting punishment on the respondent.
A charge sheet companytaining the same charges was issued to the respondent on 13.1.1988.
It was also companytended that the participation of the members of the Enquiry Committee in the Board meeting when the report was under companysideration companypletely vitiates the inquiry.
So far as second companytention is companycerned, it was held that there was violation of principles of natural justice in as much as all the three members of the Enquiry Committee participated in the Board meeting and voted in support of their Enquiry report and held the respondent guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from service.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, this appeal was filed by the Cantonment Board.
Similarly he was also directed to prepare estimates for electrification of S.V.P. Cantonment General Hospital, for the purpose of air companyditioning of the Operation Theater and for purchase of transformer for the same hospital.
The respondent filed an appeal to the GOC in Chief, Southern Command, Pune and the same was dismissed on 8.7.1991.
In support of this, the learned companynsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and Ors.
In 1987, the Cantonment Board decided to purchase N.C.T. pies for street lighting and directed the respondent to prepare an estimate.
So far as first companytention is companycerned, the High companyrt did number find any fault that the petitioner respondent herein had number made any specific allegation against any Board member of the Enquiry Committee number had imputed any malafide or illwill to any members of the Enquiry Committee.
The respondent as a Sectional Engineer Electrical prepared all those estimates.
The Contonment Board also wanted him to prepare estimates of sewerage pumps for Ghorpadi and Wanawadi Bazar Draining Scheme and also estimates for cables and street lights at Price of Wales Drive.
But on 11th August, 1987, the office of the Cantonment Board through the Chief Executive Officer served him a memorandum alleging that the estimates prepared by the respondent suffered from total number application of mind.
The Enquiry Committee found the charges proved by majority of two versus one the third member differed on items 2 and 4.
The respondent offered his explanation dated 25.8.87 to the said memorandum but that was number accepted by the Board.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2007 K. MATHUR, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.1.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.966 of 1995 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby the Division Bench has set aside the resolution of the Cantonment Board, Pune dated 29.10.1991 removing the respondent from service which is companypletely vitiated on account of the participation of the three members of the Enquiry Committee and the orders of the 1st and 2nd Appellate authorities dated 8.7.1992 and 22.12.1994 and allowed the writ petition of the Vijay D. Wani respondent herein and directed the Cantonment Board to reinstate the petitioner respondent herein into service with 50 backwages and companytinuity of service.
This companytention was upheld by the Division Bench and companysequently the Division Bench set aside the order Cantonment Board as well as the order on appeal by the GOC in Chief, Southern Command, Pune and the order passed by the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence.
Therefore, there was a legitimate apprehension in the mind of the respondent that the three members of the companymittee who were inquiring against the respondent and found him guilty were interested to see that their report should be companyfirmed by the Board and this seriously prejudiced and biased the process of decision making him guilty.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer Electrical with Pune Cantonment Board with effect from 9.3.1977.
