TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed in the post in 1956. The Deputy Director of Information and Public Relations Department, during the period from 1956, to 1957 was one Narsing Rao Manvi, hereinafter referred to as Manvi The appellant was under his immediate administrative control. The, appellant's case in the plaint was as follows: The Deputy Director was inimical towards him and harassed him in various ways. Manvi was appointed as Director-in-charge, on August 1, 1957. As Director-in-charge, Manvi caused the appellant to be suspended from service and thereafter he framed certain charges against the appellant on May 13, 1959 and they were communicated to the appellant. The appellant protested saying that Manvi should not conduct the enquiry on the basis of the charges for the reason that Manvi had bias against him and that he was not duly authorised to conduct the enquiry. In spite of the protest Manvi conducted the enquiry. The appellant wanted to inspect several files and documents in the enquiry for the purpose of his defence, but his requests in that behalf were not granted. The appellant, therefore, refused to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and the appellant was found g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to conduct the enquiry. The court further found that there were no materials from which it could be inferred that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant and that the appellant was not denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself as he was not denied access to any Me which had a material bearing upon his defence. The. High Court, therefore, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. In this appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant, that the inquiring officer had no authority to conduct the enquiry and that the appellant was not given a reasonable he was denied access to several files which ` on his defence. The trial court had relied upon the following circumstances for its conclusion that the inquiring officer was biased against the appellant. By Ex. A-10 dated 15-10-1955. Manvi who was the Assistant Director at the time, called for the explanation of the Appellant regarding theft of 164 files in the Weeding Section in which the appellant was the Superintendent. The appellant replied by Ex. A-97 dated October 18, 1955 stating that he had no idea of the missing fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compliance with the order. By Ex. A-49 the Director-in-charge said that the appellant should take charge of the entire files in the Weeding Section and that no further arrangement is possible, apparently referring to the requirement of two clerks for taking charge. Besides the circumstances relied on by the trial court, the appellant urged the following circumstances to support his case that the inquiring officer was biased. Manvi had written on April 29, 1959, a letter enclosing certain documents requesting for an opinion from Dr. R. Natarajan, Superintendent, Hospital for Mental Diseases, Hyderabad, about the mental condition of the appellant. This letter was not produced in court. We are left to gather the contents of the letter from the reply of Dr. Natarajan (Ex. B-8). It would seem from the reply that Manvi wanted to get rid of the services of the appellant without taking any disciplinary action- against him and without holding an enquiry, for the reason that he was mentally unsound. In his reply, Dr. Natarajan said : Unfortunately, I cannot, on medical grounds, advice his, retrenchment or removal and, therefore, I would suggest you .to deal with him departmentally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Q. B. 41 at 51.), the Court, after a review of the relevant cases held that real likelihood of bias was the proper test and, that a real likelihood of bias had to be made to appear not only from the materials in fact ascertained by the party complaining, but from such further facts as he might readily have ascertained and easily verified in the course of his inquiries. The question then is : whether a real likelihood of bias existed is to be determined on the probabilities to be inferred from the circumstances by court objectively, or, upon the basis of the impressions that might reasonably be left on the minds of the party aggrieved or the public at large. The tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion are really inconsistent with each other. We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The court must look at the impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. If right minded persons would think that there is real likelihood of b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore July 27, 1959. On July 27, 1959 Manvi went on leave; Luther was appointed as Director on August 1, 1959. On October 10, 1959, by Ex A-65, the appellant again protested that Manvi was biased against him and a person unconnected with the Department should be appointed as inquiring officer. On October 20, 1959, Luther, as Director, authorised Manvi, Deputy Director to continue the enquiry (see Ex. A- 114-B). But on October 27, 1959, by Ex-B-4, the Government enquired of Luther whether it was the Deputy Director who was conducting the enquiry and said that the Director himself should conduct the enquiry. Ex-B-4 5-L392Sup.CI/74 was not communicated to the appellant or shown to Manvi. On November 6, 1959, Luther wrote to Government explaining the practical difficulties in his conducting the enquiry and stating that it would be expedient if the Deputy Director was allowed to continue the enquiry On November 24, 1959 the enquiry was completed. On December 3, 1959 the Government- agreed to the suggestion of Luther that Manvi might continue the enquiry. It is not clear from Ex. B-1 that although Manvi was the Director,in-charge at the time, he Was the person intended by the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in any other case where disciplinary action into the conduct of a Government servant is considered necessary, the authority competent to order an enquiry- and appoint an Inquiry Officer shall be as follows: Class of members of the State Authority competent to Subordinate Service enquiry and/or to appoint an Inquiry Officer (a) Subordinate Service (Class The Head of the Officer, III service) the appointing authority or, any higher authority . We think that when the Government made it clear that the Director should conduct the enquiry, the Director as Head of the Department cannot exercise his power under the rule by designating another person to conduct the enquiry and therefore the order passed by Luther (Ex. A-I 14-B) authorising Manvi as Deputy Director to conduct the enquiry could not invest him with the power to do so. We think that the Director, as Head of the office bad no power to designate or appoint an inquiry officer, as Government, the appointing authority, had already directed that the Director should himself conduct the enquiry. It would be anomalous to hold that both the appointing authority, namely, the Government and the Head of the Office, namel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial for the purpose of defence, that the appellant was made aware of the contents of those, proceedings and therefore, the inquiring officer was justified in not giving copies of these proceedings or in not acquainting the delinquent of them. Ex. 3 relates to a file regarding the transfer of the appellant in 1951 from the Secretariat to the Information Department. Ex.4 relates to a proceeding against the appellant which resulted in a censure on the basis of a complaint in 1951. Whatever night be said in justification of the refusal of the inquring officer to give access to the appellant of the confidential records relating to the witnesses we see no justification for not granting the prayer of the appellant to inspect the files containing the proceedings on the ground that the appellant was appraised of the proceedings in 1951, especially when it is seen that these proceedings have been relied upon by the inquiring officer in his report to sub- stantiate one of the charges against the appellant. it was too much to assume that the appellant would be remembering the details of the proceedings of 1951 at the time of the inquiry. We set aside the judgment and decree of the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
