RAMA KANTA DUBEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears from the report of the Enquiry Officer that he himself examined the witnesses tendered on behalf of the prosecution. As a matter of fact, there was no Presenting Officer. He, therefore, took upon himself the burden of proving the case on behalf of the prosecution. If the Enquiry Officer was to do this, I am afraid he cannot be expected to act impartially or even dispassionately.

(2.) Whatever may be the decision on the evidence to be led by the parties, the employee concerned is entitled to get a fair hearing and a fair decision by an impartial person. He may be an officer of the same concern but nonetheless he should be disinterested with regard to the outcome of the enquiry. If it is suggested that he examined the witness is in a disinterested manner even then the trial cannot be said to have been fair because in that event justice was not done with the case of the employee. Conversely if he did not act disinterestedly then the maxim that "no one can be judged in his own cause" was violated.

(3.) This Court is of the view that no useful purpose shall be served by examining the matter any further although other grounds are also alleged to have been taken in this writ petition.