R VENKATESAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. He was appointed as Store Keeper in the Wood Working Unit cum Training Centre, Pondicherry, with effect from 18th March, 1965, as per the order of the Director of Industries, Pondicherry, dated 30th March, 1965. The Wood Working Unit was inspected and stock verified by Thiru T.S. Vijayaraghavan, Stores Superintendent, Pay and Accounts Office, Pondicherry, from May, 1969 to June, 1969. As per the inventory taken by him there was shortage of stock worth about Rs. 93,542.91. The matter was enquired into by the Vigilance Department, Pondicherry, at the instance of the Director of Industries. As a result of the said enquiry, the Director of Industries, who is also the disciplinary authority, framed four charges against the appellant and held an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Out of the four charges levelled against the appellant, the Enquiry Officer held that charges 1 and 2 had been proved and proposed to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service. The appellant was issued a show cause notice on 30th September, 1972, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant submitted his explanation on 2nd November, 1972, and after consideration of that explanation, the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 6th November, 1972, dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the Government of Pondicherry, on 9th December, 1972, and the appeal was dismissed on 30th January, 1973. Thereafter the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court for quashing the order of dismissal. The two contentions raised in the writ petition are--

(2.) A learned single Judge of this Court, held:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Enquiry Officer was the Administrative Officer at the time when the appellant took charge as store keeper in the wood working unit and it was on his instructions he took charge and signed the registers without a physical verification of the stock and he is not competent to hold the enquiry. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and Anr. v. Sri Satyanarayana Transport (Private) Ltd., 1965 AIR(SC) 1303 the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the person trying a cause in quasi-judicial proceedings must not only act fairly, but must be able to act above suspicion of unfairness, but his previous conduct gives ground for believing that he cannot act with an open mind and deal with the matter before him objectively, fairly, and impartially, any enquiry conducted by him is vitiated on the ground of personal bias. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lacknow, 1977 1 LLJ 68 SC the learned Counsel further contended that in deciding the question of bias, human probabilities have to be taken into consideration, and if there is a possibility of bias animating the mind of the Enquiry Officer against the appellant and there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased, the enquiry conducted and the findings arrived at are vitiated by the doctrine of bias.