Patna High Court
Virendra Prasad Singh 'Gautam' vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 6 March, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990(1)BLJR567
JUDGMENT Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the Administrator, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Limited Patna (respondent No. 3) as contained in his office order dated the 31st of December, 1988 as also his order of the same date (31st December, 1988) annexed thereto, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service of the said Land Development Bank with effect from the date of the order. The said order is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application.
2. It will be relevant to state the basic facts leading to the present application. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Bihar Cooperative Bank, Patna in 1973, where he was promoted in the rank of the Inspecting Officer in the year 1976. Thereafter he was appointed as Secretary-cum-Administrative Officer of the Bihar State Land Development Bank Limited, Patna (respondent No. 2) (hereinafter to be called as "the Land Development Bank") on the 15th of April, 1982 by the Managing Director on deputation on foreign service terms. He was made incharge of the Establishment and General Sections of the Land Development Bank and in August, 1986 he was made incharge of the Vigilance Section. Meanwhile the petitioner was promoted to the rank of tie Accounts Officer in the scale of Rs. 1400-2950/- with effect from the 1st of January, 1987 in his parent Bank, namely, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited, Patna. Finally in pursuance of the resolution of the Board of Directors passed in the meeting held on the 13th of June, 1987 the petitioner was finally ansorbed in the Land Development Bank on the post of Director (Personnel) by a Notification dated the 1st of August, 1987. His deputation on foreign service terms in the Bank ceased with effect from the 31st of July, 1987, and he became a permanent employee of the Land Development Bank on the post of Director (Personnel)-cum-Secretary of the Land Development Bank. This post he held till the impugned order was passed on the 31st of December, 1988.
3. On the 30th of July, 1988 the Land Development Bank was superseded under the provision of the Bihar and Orissa State Co-operative Societies Act, and Shri P.K. Basu (respondent No. 3) was appointed as Administrator and only a day before, i.e. on the 29th of July, 1988 he had been appointed Managing Director of the Land Development Bank. It is alleged that immediately after taking over charge as Administrator of the Land Development Bank, respondent No. 3 called the petitioner and told him that he had been commanded to dismiss the officers of a particular caste. In pursuance thereof the respondent No. 3 divested the petitioner of the powers of the Director (Personnel) and Vigilance under his order dated the 17th of August, 1988 as contained in Annexure 2. A few days later i.e. on the 1st of September, 1988 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under the signature of respondent No. 3, asking him to show cause as to why his appointment, absorption and/or promotion on different posts be not set aside vide Annexure 3, as, according to him, they were ab initio void. In his show cause the petitioner submitted that his appointment and promotion were done and approved by the Board of Directors and were issued under the signature of the then Managing Director of the Land Development Bank. The petitioner also submitted in his show cause that the Board of Directors had examined, and finding the petitioner suitable, had appointed him on the permanent post, and there was nothing irregular and/or illegal in his appointment. Simultaneously, on the 1st of September, 1988 the respondent No. 3 initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and directed Mm to submit a written statement to Shri S.R. Ojha, Deputy Managing Director (Head-quarters) of the Land Development Bank, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer of the proceedings, although Shri Ojha was drawing lower pay than that of the petitioner. The office order asking the petitioner to show cause is contained in Aunexure-4, which also contains the charge-sheet. An English version of the said charge-sheet dated the 1st of September, 1988 (Annexure-4) reads thus:
Charge-sheet (1) Name of the Officer: Shri Birendra Prasad Singh "Gautam".
(2) Designation of the Officer: Director (Personnel)-Cum-Secretary, Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Ltd. Patna.
(3) List of charges:
The stay older on appointment previously issued by the State Government vide Memo No. 950, dated 18.4.1984, was lifted by the Government on certain conditions and the acceptance of the Government was communicated vide Memo No. 1083, dated 9.6.1987 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar (copy enclosed).
2. In accordance with this very letter and as per the decision of the Board of Directors, dated 13.6.1987 and the decision of the Appointment Committee, dated 13.12.1987 it was made clear that reservation policy of the State Government should be followed. But when you placed the proposal for appointment of 167 employees before the Managing Director and the Chairman, you did not deliberately mention in your note the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid letter of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, and the conditions regarding reservation made by the Board of Directors and the Appointment Committee and by misleading the higher authorities you got irregular appointment of 167 persons made, as a result of which the Bank was put to loss. Even after the date of joining of the Administrator you did not mention all the facts in the file for the first time and when the Administrator made enquiry, the aforesaid facts came to light. In this way, you tried to misled the Administrator also. As per Order No. 1680, dated 6.8.1988 of the Administrator, these irregular appointments were finally cancelled. The copy of the aforesaid order is enclosed herewith which contains the list of irregular appointments made by you.
Sd/- Illegible, 1.9.1988 Administrator.
However, the documents referred to in the office order, dated the 1st of September, 1988 (Anncxure-4), namely, the order of respondent No. 3, dated the 6th of August, 1988, terminating the services of 167 retrenched persons, note dated the 2nd of August, 1988, addressed to the Administrator by the petitioner, and the letter, dated the 9th of June, 1987, purported to be issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, were not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet.
4. The petitioner submitted his written statement in support of his defence before the Enquiry Officer on the 1st of October, 1988, denying the allegations and making for his personal hearing. In the written statement the petitioner raised a preliminary objection that in absence of any rules of Business, as stipulated under Rule 33(xii) of the Bye-Laws, there were no legal basis for any departmental proceeding. During the enquiry a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer stating, inter alia, that the (sic) of the disciplinary control could not be exercised arbitrarily but only in accordance with the rules of Business stipulated in Rule 33(xii) of the Bye-laws, which had not been framed so far. On the 7th of October, 1987 when such a petition was filed before the Enquiry Officer no orders were passed. It transpires that on the 11th of October, 1988 the Enquiry Officer sent a note to the respondent-Administrator seeking his guidance in the matter-vide Annexure 6. But the Enquiry Officer is alleged to have passed an anti-dated order on the 7th of October, 1988 itself, although he had sent a buff-sheet note seeking instructions of the Administrator on the 11th of October, 1988, as contained in Annexure-6. The Enquiry Officer overruled this preliminary objection and proceeded with the enquiry. When the enquiry proceeded, some questions were raised on behalf of the petitioners, and it was urged that the Department should be directed to disclose and produce all such documents and witnesses on which reliance was placed before the defence evidence began. Some documents were ordered to be given to the petitioner.
5. According to the petitioner, a perfunctory enquiry was held and without recording any evidence as also against same materials which have been brought on record, the enquiry officer recorded certain findings. The relevant extract of the findings contained in Annexure-17, translated into English, is as follows:
In this context it is worth mentioning that it has clearly been admitted by the then Chairman and Managing Director that after consultation on reservation roaster, etc. on all points with the Officer who has been charged, the proposal for appointment was approved by him. A clear written statement has been furnished by the Ex-Chairman and Managing Director to this effect that the charge against Shri Virendra Prasad Singh "Gautam" for misleading the higher officials, is false and that after consultation with the Officer who has been charged, the proposal for appointment was approved. So far the allegation of not pleading every fact in the file at the first instance, after the date of joining of the Administrator is concerned, in this regard there is no document or evidence available except the note dated 2.8.1988. The note in question is not self-contained but the decision has been let on the wisdom of the Administrator. After thorough consideration by the Administrator, the services of these 167 employees were terminated as they were no longer required.
After thoroughly examining the aforesaid facts and in the light of the evidence presented before me, I find the charges for not mentioning regarding reservation and accordingly reserved posts in favour of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and other castes in his notes, is proved against Shri Virendra Prasad Singh "Gautam" Director (Personnel), Land Development Bank. Hence Shri Gautam is held responsible for the same.
The charges of misleading the higher officials and causing damages to the Bank etc. are not proved on the basis of the evidence and the documents available.
Sd/- Illegible.
(S.R. Ojha), Deputy Managing Director.
6. Mr. Govind Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there were only two charges against the petitioner, namely:
(i) that the petitioner misguided the then Managing Director, Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, IAS and the then Chairman Shri Rajo Singh, MLA in making appointment of 167 retrenched employees on ad hoc basis as he did not explain various procedures in his noting dated the 12th of February, 1988 which was submitted to them; and
(ii) that he did not keep the connected facts regarding the appointment in the file before the present Administrator (respondent No. 3) when he joined the Land Development Bank and it was only after an enquiry that the present Administrator came to know about the facts. In this manner, he misguided the Administrator of Land Development Bank.
Mr. Das submitted that as regards the first charge, the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, who found that this charge of misguiding the Managing Director and the Chairman Was not proved on the basis of the material placed before him. As regards the second charge, the submission is that there is no finding that the petitioner misguided the present Administrator and the Enquiry Officer has merely stated that the note of the petitioner dated the 2nd of August, 1988 was not self contained and the decision was left on the wisdom of the Administrator who terminated the services of the aforesaid 167 employees. Mr. Das then sumitted that there was no charge against the petitioner of knowingly not mentioning in his noting the facts regarding reservation and details about the allotments of reserved seats for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes and other castes and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Enquiry Officer to give a finding against the petitioner that he was guilty of this charge.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents--Land Development Bank and the Administrator, submitted that the charge against the petitioner are three-fold and one of them being that the petitioner knowingly did not mention the policy regarding reservation in his note dated the 12 February, 1988 sent to the Managing Director. According to Mr. Mahto, the Enquiry Officer was, therefore, right in giving the finding amongst the petitioner, so far this charge is concerned, inasmuch as, the petitioner had not mentioned any thing regarding the policy of reservation in his note dated the 12th February, 1982.
8. The question, therefore, is whether there were two charges against the petitioner or three. A close reading of the charge sheet contained in Annexure 4 of the writ application leaves me in no doubt that there were two charges only against the petitioner. The first charge is as has been stated above, to misguide the higher officers i.e. the then Managing Director and the then Chairman in getting the appointment of 167 persons made by not mentioning the facts regarding the reservation policy in his note dated the 12th February, 1988 put up to the Managing Director. This cannot be bifurcated into two, as suggested by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto. According to me, this is one composite charge and the Enquiry Officer has found that the charge of misguiding the Managing Director and the Chairman has not been proved. Even if it is assumed that this charge can be bifurcated into two, then where was the evidence before the Enquiry Officer to show that the petitioner had not mentioned about the policy regarding reservation knowingly or deliberately (Janboojhkar).
9. At this point, it may be mentioned that on the 6th of February, 1988 the Section Officer Shri Surendra Kumar Singh seat a note to the Director (Personne), namely, the petitioner, English translation of which reads as under:
Director (Personnel).--Petition of Shri Subodh Narayan Choudhary and connected papers regarding appointment of Shri Chaudhary on the post of Area Officer in the past, attached with the petition and subsequent relieving letter after retrenchment enclosed in the file, may kindly be persued. Shri Choudhary was appointed on the post of Area Officer in the Bank and he has been retrenched. It has been requested by Shri Chaudhary that he may again be appointed in the Bank and may be given opportunity to work. In this regard in the light of the decision taken in the meeting of Service and Appointment Committee dated 13.12.1987, decision to appoint Shri Choudhary again on the post of Area Officer can be taken.
Sd/- Surendra Kumar Singh.
6.2.1988 Section Officer (Estb.) The aforesaid note of the Section Officer was endorsed by the petitioner on the 12th of February, 1988 to the Managing Director, as under:
Managing Director.--In the light of above notes, temporary appointment of Shri Choudhary on the post of Area Officer on consolidated salary can be considered. Please.
Sd/- Virendra Prasad Singh 12.2.1988 Director (Personnel).
Such notes were forwarded in respect of 167 appointments to the Managing Director and were endorsed by the Managing Director to the Chairman on the same date, i.e. 12th of February, 1988 itself. It will be too much to read in these notes of the petitioner that the petitioner did not mention about the reservation policy deliberately.
10. It may be also relevant here to mention about two letters sent by the then Managing Director, Shri Shankar Prasad, I.A.S. and the then Chairman, Shri Rajo Singh, M.L.A. to the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry. On the 26th of November, 1988 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer that in view of the charge that the petitioner had misguided the then Managing Director and the Chairman of the Land Development Bank, the aforesaid two officers should be produced as witnesses of the deparment in order to substantiate the charge as framed against him. They were noticed by the Enquiry Officer. It is alleged that the respondent Administrator became unhappy with this order of the Enquiry Officer issuing notice to the aforesaid two persons and divested the Enquiry Officer of the powers vested in him by the office order dated the 17th of August, 1988 vide order passed on the 26th of November, 1988, contained in Annexure-8. According to the petitioner, this was the first blow given to the Enquiry Officer himself the behave properly. However, two letters had been sent to the then Managing Director, Shri Uma Shanker Prasad IAS and the then Chairman, Shri Rajo Singh M.L.A. in pursuance of the order dated the 26th of November, 1988 by the Enquiry Officer, vide Annexure-9. Ultimately, Shri Rajo Singh, M.L.A., the then Chairman of the Land Development Bank sent a letter dated the 15th of December, 1988 (Annexure 13) stating inter alia, that the chargesheeted officer had never misguided him. He also. said in his letter that the question of reservation, maintaining of roster etc. was considered by him in detail and thereafter he had approved the appointments of 167 persons. According to him, in the meeting held on the 27th of March, 1988 of the Board of Directors the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Bihar was also present and in his presence the appointment of 167 persons were scrutinised and the question relating to observance of reservation policy was also considered and thereafter the Board of Directors approved the same. It is then stated that it was not correct to say that either he (Chairman) or the Board of Director had been misled in the matter of appointment by the charged officer, i.e. the petitioner. He requested the Enquiry Officer to examine him at his residence if he so liked in presence of the representatives of the Land Development Bank and the counsel of the petitioner. This letter is contained in Anncxure-13 and marked as Ext. 1 by the Enquiry Officer.
11. Similary, the then Managing Director Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, I.A.S. also sent a reply informing the Enquiry Officer that he was fully aware of the appointments of 167 retrenched employees and he was prepared to make a statement with regard to their appointments. He pointed out that the Enquiry Officer should have sent the questionaire to him so that he could have answered each and every question in writting. He further stated in the letter that it was absolutely false to say that he had been misled by the charged officer, namely the petitioner in the matter of appointment of 167 retrenched employees and had not followed the principles of reservation. He further pointed out that he was fully aware of the proceedings of the Board of Directors held on the 13th of June, 1987 and the decision of the Service and Appointment Committee dated the 13th of December, 1987 as also the letter of the Co-operative Secretary dated the 9th of June, 1987. He further wrote in his letter that the charge sheeted officer had fully made him aware of all the facts before the appointments were made. Reference is also made to an order passed by the Patna High Court in the matter of appointment of retrenched employees and it is pointed out that at the relevant time there were more than 1000 vacancies in different grades and a proposal was mooted out for appointment of 167 retrenched employees. While concluding, he also wrote to the Enquiry Officer that he was prepared to make statement in his office at any time. This letter has been annexed as Aunexure-14 to the writ application and has been maked as Ext. 2 by the Enquiry Officer in the proceeding.
12. In the face of such statements made by the then Managing Director, who is also an I.A.S. Officer and the then Chairman, who was a member of the Legislative Assembly how can it be said that the note of the petitioner dated 12.2.1988 put up before the Managing Director was in any way misleading or that the petitioner had deliberately not mentioned the facts regarding reservation policy. The Managing Director has stated in his letter that he had discussed every thing with the charged officer, namely the matters regarding the policy of reservation, etc. prior to making of the appointment.
13. Whenever there in allegation of omitting to do a thing deliberately and/or willfully, it must be with a purpose and not for nothing. If it is alleged that the petitioner had deliberately not mentioned the facts regarding the reservation policy in his note dated 12.2.1988 put up before the Managing Director, then it must necessarily lead to only one conclusion that he was keeping back something from the Managing Director in order to mislead him or misguide him. It could not be merely for his ego satisfaction and if it was so, then there was this evidence of the Managing Director that it was false to say that the petitioner had ever misguided him in this matter. In fact, according to the Managing Director, the matters had been discussed by him with the petitioner before making the appointments. In such a state of thing, how can there be a finding that the charge of not mentioning the facts regarding the reservation policy had been established against the petitioner. I find it difficult to separate charge No. 1 into two, as suggested by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto. The charge is only one and that is for misguiding or misleading the Managing Director and the Chairman by not mentioning the facts regarding the reservation policy in the noting dated 12.2.1988. The Enquiry Officer has found that this charge has not been proved. The Enquiry Officer was not correct in holding that there was also a charge of deliberately not mentioning the facts regarding the reservation policy in the notes and that charge has been proved and that too in the absence of any material other than the note-sheet dated 12.2.1988 itself. No body has said that the petitioner had deliberately omitted to mention the facts regarding the reservation policy in his note dated 12.2.1988.
14. An enquiry in a departmental proceeding is held to find out the facts and any finding can be arrived at only on the basis of the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer. It will appear that before the Enquiry Officer, apart from the charge-sheet, the show cause of the petitioner, the note-sheet of Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, dated 6.2.1988 at the nine-sheet of the petitioner, dated 12.2.1988, there were only two letters; one sent by the then Chairman and the other by the then Managing Director, marked as Exts. 1 and 2 by the Enquiry Officer. The charge-sheet, the show cause and the various notes cannot be said to be the evidence in the enquiry. The only evidence, therefore, was the two statements made in the letter of the then Managing Director and the then Chairman which completely exonerates the petitioner. It is difficult to understand as to on what basis the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of deliberately not mentioning the policy regarding reservation etc. in his note, dated 12.2.1988. At this stage it becomes relevant to notice the petitioner's allegation that by divesting the Enquiry Officer of certain powers, the present Administrator (respondent No. 3) had administered or joining to the Enquiry Officer to properly behave.
15. Be that as it may, I do not find that there was any justification for the Enquiry Officer either to bifurcate charge No. 1 into two charge, or to give a finding that the petitioner was guilty of deliberately not mentioning the policy regarding reservation in his note, dated 12.2.1988. On the contrary, the only evidence Exts. 1 and 2 marked by the Enquiry Offices, totally a solved the petitioner from the charge of misguiding the then Managing Director and the then Chairman.
16. It will not be out of place to mention here that even the Administrator (respondent No. 3) himself had framed only two charges, namely, misguiding the then Chairman and the then Managing Director and misguiding the Administrator (respondent No. 3) by not putting the facts in the file alter he joined. This is not only evident from Annexurt-4, the charge-sheet but also the dismissal order, contained in Annexure-1. In Annexurs-1 while giving his finding, the Administrator has categorised only two charges. The Enquiry Officer misconducted himself by construing, that there were two charges in charge No. 1, and one charge in charge No. 2, making it three and thus exceeded his brief.
17. The Administrator (respondent No. 3), however, found the petitioner guilty of both the charges by reversing the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge No. 1, and by holding that he himself was misguided when there was no finding on charge No. 2 by the Enquiry Officer.
18. Mr. Govind Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal is vitiated due to patent bias of the Administrator (respondent No. 3), inasmuch as, being personally aggrieved, he should not have become a judge in his own cause.
19. Atleast one of the charges was that the Administrator (respondent No. 3) himself was misled by the delinquent officer. In such a case, the Administrator had became a witness and should have examined himself in the enquiry. This was not done, Instead, he himself issued the charge-sheet, appointed the Enquiry Officer, issued instructions to the Enquiry Officer and reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer relating to the charge of misleading the then Chairman and the then Managing Director, as also misleading himself. To say the least, it is traversity of justice and gross misuse of power actuated by bias.
20. It is well established that a person should not be a judge in his own cause. If one of the allegations was that the Administrator (respondent No. 3) himself was misled, then he should have kept himself aloof from any departmental proceeding except examining himself as a witness. He did not choose to become a witness and chose to become the judge. That in passing the final order of dismissal, the Administrator (respondent No. 3) was actuated by bias, is self-evident. He was totally unjustified in reversing the findings of the Enquiry Officer of the first charge of misguiding the then Chairman and the then Managing Director. No reasonable person can come to the conclusion that the then Chairman and the then Managing Director were misguided by the delinquent officer in view of the evidence brough before the enquiry officer, namely, the letters on the then Chairman and the then Managing Director. It is peculiar to say that the then Chairman and the then Managing Director were misled, when they themselves were asserting that they were not misled. In such a situation, no person other than a person, with malice and bias, could have come to a decision as the respondent No. 3 the Administrator did in finding the petitioner guilty.
21. In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. , it was observed that the Court or the Tribunal passing a judgment, must observe atleast the minimum requirements of natural justice and should be composed of impartial persons acting fairly and without bias and in good faith. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial "coram non-Judice". It was also observed that the test of real likelihood of bias was whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely and whether the authority concerned was likely to be disposed to decide the matter only in a particular way. What is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, "Am I biased?"; but to look at the mind of the party before him. So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent-Administrator charged the petitioner for misguiding him, and in absence of any evidence or of a finding by the Enquiry Officer, decided to pass judgment himself. That there was a likelihood of bias in the mind of the respondent-Administrator against the petitioner, cannot be ruled out, that too having regard to the anticedent events, such as Annexures 2 and 3.
22. An administrative order must be based on reasons of fact which exists. In absence of existence of facts, the order must be held to be afflicted with an abuse of power. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner was guilty of either of the charges. A malice in law can be informed in such cases where an order has been passed without just cause or excuse, or for want of reasonable and probable cause.
23. In the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation 1948( 1) King's Bench Division 223, Lord Greene R.R observed as follows:
A person entrusted with a discretion must so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may trully be said, and often is said, to be acting "unreasonably." Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. Warrington, L.J., in Short V Poole Corporation gave the example of the red-baired teacher, dismissed because she had red hair. That is unrersonable in one sense. In another sense it is taking into consideration that it might almost be described as being done in bad faith; and in fact, all these things run into one another.
So far as the present case is concerned, the respondent-Administrator should have directed himself properly in law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he should have retained from passing any order, as he himself was a patty and had formed his opinion at the time of framing charge itself, and eve a prior to that, as evidenced by the order, date the 17th of August, 1988 (Annexure-2), divesting the petitioner of the powers of Director (Personnel) as also Annexure-3, dated the 1st of September, 1988, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his appointment, promotion etc., be not set aside as being ab initio void. These were indicative of how the mind of the Administrator was working. Finding is not possible to get rid of the petitioner on the basis of Annexure-3 that the petitioner's appointment/promotion was ab initio void, the void, the Administrator seems to have initiated the departmental proceeding, vide Annexure-4 to give effect to his preconceived decision. Even though there was no evidence on the 2nd charge and no finding by the Enquiry Officer, the respondent-Administrator seems to have been guided by extraneous matter. This was most unreasonable and must be described as being done in bad faith.
24. In the conclusion, I findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority, namely, the Administrator (respondent No. 3) are baseless and cannot be sustained. I also find that the Administrator (respondent No. 3) suffered from bias and thus acted mala fide in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and finally dismissing him from service. The impugned order, dated the 31st of December, 1988, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, therefore, must go and it is, accordingly, set aside and quashed. The petitioner will be deemed to be in service with all benefits to which he may be entitled.
25. This application is, accordingly, allowed with costs, hearing fee Rs. 2,500 (Rupees two thousand five hundred) only.