Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.I am satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides. The President of the Society having lost the election nurtured a feeling that Thiru.Karunanithi is also responsible for his defeat. That is why, one of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the charges framed against Thiru.Karunanithi is that he canvassed in the local body elections. The enquiry officer did not find the same to be proved. The disciplinary authority could have dissented from the said finding. But the cat was out of the bag when he disclosed his personal knowledge. This clearly vitiates the entire proceedings. There is a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a member of the enquiry committee cannot depose as a witness in the proceedings. One such decision is The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86. It was a case in which the Deputy Superintendent while conducting an inquiry against a constable, decided to give testimony. The court held that this act of the presiding officer disclosed considerable bias against the constable. The entire proceedings stood vitiated. In APSRT vs. Sri Satyanarayana Transports (AIR 1965 SC 1303), a Minister had sought the help of the petitioners to win an election but they were unable to do so. He was subsequently defeated. The petitioners were likely to be affected by a scheme and the Minister heard their objections and approved the scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Minister is bound to be biased against the petitioners and quashed the order of the Minister as it was vitiated by personal bias.