M.S. FRANK Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the action initiated by the employer/St. Stephen's College (represented by respondent nos. 3 and 4) of initiating, continuing and concluding departmental proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum of Charges dated 01.12.2011 issued against the petitioner.

(2.) IN sum and substance what the petitioner argues is that since the respondent no. 5/Principal is the main complainant with respect to the articles of charges, the departmental proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority/governing body to which respondent no. 5 was a party is illegal. What is also argued is that since respondent no. 5 was part of the governing body which passed the resolution dated 25.11.2011 deciding to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, and since respondent no. 5 is admittedly a witness with respect to all the charges, consequently the departmental proceedings are being violative of principles of natural justice as no one can be a judge in his own cause i.e respondent no. 5 cannot be the complainant, could not thereafter consequently be part of the governing body/disciplinary authority and thereafter could not have issued the articles of charges dated 22.12.2011.

(3.) I may state that it is settled law that a person cannot be a part of the disciplinary committee which initiates inquiry against a chargesheeted official although that person is the complainant as also the witness in the case. I need not set out the case law in this regard inasmuch as it is an undisputed legal position that no one can be a judge in his own cause i.e no one can be a complainant, a witness in the proceedings and also the judge to decide those very proceedings. Therefore, if we look at the issue strictly on account of the fact that respondent no. 5 was admittedly part of the governing body which passed the resolution for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner, and since respondent no. 5 was very much a witness in all the charges, and since the articles of charges were also issued by the respondent no. 5 as a disciplinary authority, consequently, if only these facts are looked into, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot stand. However, that conclusion does not follow in the present case because actually the resolution of the governing body dated 25.11.2011 was specifically ratified by the governing body/disciplinary authority by its resolution dated 13.01.2012, and while ratifying the earlier resolution to take departmental action against the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 specifically recused. The relevant portion of the resolution dated 13.1.2012 of the governing body of the college reads as under: