2015 SCC OnLine SC 103 | J 2 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Before Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and C. Nagappan, JJ.)
Professor Ramesh Chandra .…. Appellant
v.
University of Delhi & Ors. .…. Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8224 of 2012
Decided on February 6, 2015
A. Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Natural Justice — Bias/Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Sua Causa — Real Likelihood of Bias — Inquiry Officer, was earlier a counsel for the employer — Appointment of — If an Hon'ble retired Judge of a Court before his appointment as a Judge was a lawyer of any of the party (Delhi University herein), the Disciplinary Authority should not engage such retired Judge as an Inquiry Officer, as the other party may allege bias against the Inquiry Officer and the reputation of the Hon'ble Judge may be at stake
(Para 25 and 26)
B. Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Natural Justice — Audi Alteram Partem — Right to Hearing — Reasonable Opportunity/Right of Representation — Representation through a legally trained and qualified lawyer — If any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired Hon'ble Judge is appointed as Inquiry Officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, the denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair
(Paras 27 to 30)
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghvendranath Nandkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 61; J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, (1991) 2 SCC 283 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 483 : (1991) 16 ATC 480, relied on
No comments:
Post a Comment