Ashok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 May, 1985
15. Regarding the issue (b), as mentioned in the report of the IO (A/5),
the respondent No. 4 chose to conduct the preliminary inquiry himself and
took the written statements of the witnesses, although he was the person
interested in the case as one of the charge was the applicant's misbehaviour
to him vide charges in Article-III. This point has not been discussed by the
appellate and revisionary authorities in their orders passed to confirm the
order of the respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4, who had complained of
misbehaviour against the applicant functioned as the applicant's
disciplinary authority and in that capacity he had issued the charge-sheet
against the applicant, mainly based on the written statements of the
witnesses recorded by the respondent No. 4 during preliminary inquiry. But
when the inquiry report was submitted, another incumbent was in office of
the respondent No. 4 who had issued the disagreement note and passed the
impugned punishment order of dismissal from engagement. It is clear that
the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant by the
respondent No. 4 cannot be stated to be unbiased since the respondent No.
4 was a complainant and had conducted the preliminary inquiry, based on
which the charge-sheet dated 9.4.2008 was issued. The charge-sheet dated
9.4.2008 was flawed on the settled principle of law that no man can be a
judge in his own case as per the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, reported in
1985 SCR Supl (1) 657 in which it was held as under:-