Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. and Ors.

Facts

Appellant was an employee of the Braithwaite and Company Limited. The Company decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for his misconduct. Consequently, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet to which he gave an explanation. An Inquiry Committee constituted for that purpose found that the charges levelled against the appellant to be true after which Disciplinary Authority removed the appellant from service.

Appeal was filed before Board of Directors against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Chairman-cum-Managing Director also participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board. The Board, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by a non-speaking order. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court. High Court after having found defect in the proceedings, set aside the order of removal passed against the appellant. The Company filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench set aside the order passed by the Single Judge. It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Key Takeaways for Students

Legal Issue

Whether the proceedings of the Board were vitiated on account of participation of the Disciplinary Authority while deciding Appellant’s case?

Holding

One of the principles of natural justice is that no person shall be a judge in his own cause and the adjudicating authority must be impartial and must act without any kind of bias. This could be possible only when a judge or an adjudicating authority decides the matter impartially and without carrying any kind of bias.

In the present case, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company acted as a Disciplinary Authority as well as an Appellate Authority presided over and participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board. Such a dual function is not permissible on account of established rule against bias. In a situation where such a dual function is discharged by one and the same authority, unless permitted by an act of legislation or statutory provision, the same would be contrary to rule against bias. Where an authority earlier had taken a decision, he is disqualified to sit in appeal against his own decision, as he already prejudged the matter and filing of an appeal would be an exercise in futility. Hence, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company ought not to have participated in the deliberations of the meeting of the Board when the Board heard and decided the appeal of the appellant.

Final Decision Appeal Allowed

Ratio

Principles of natural justice are that no person shall be a judge in his own cause or the adjudicating authority must be impartial and must act without any kind of bias. The said rule against bias has its origin from the maxim known as 'Debt esse Judex in Propria Causa', which is based on the principle that justice not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done.