Appointment of accused official as inquiry officer violates natural justice principle of *nemo judex in causa sua*.

The petitioner, Vijay Gupta, initiated partition proceedings (Case No. 0049/3-3/2024-25) regarding Survey No. 142 in Village Odpura

During these proceedings, a partition proposal was prepared by the Patwari and signed by the petitioner, becoming part of the official judicial record

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 (the then Naib Tehsildar) tampered with this official record by erasing partition lines with a rubber eraser

Despite the petitioner filing formal complaints (Annexures P-5 and P-6), Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appointed Respondent No. 4 himself to conduct the inquiry into the allegations leveled against him

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a fair and independent inquiry

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the doctrine of nemo judex in causa sua (no person shall be a judge in his own cause), which dictates that an inquiry must be impartial to ensure transparency and accountability in administrative functioning

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the protection of these fundamental legal principles

The Court found that the material facts presented a clear violation of procedural fairness.

It noted that Respondent No. 4 had been tasked with investigating the very complaints directed at his own alleged tampering of official judicial records

The Court reasoned that such a course of action is fundamentally contrary to settled legal principles, as an inquiry conducted by the accused party cannot inspire confidence or fulfill the requirement of an impartial probe

Without adjudicating on the merits of the tampering allegations, the Court determined that the administrative process was flawed on its face due to the conflict of interest inherent in the appointment of the inquiry officer

The Court ordered that the inquiry be entrusted to a competent official other than Respondent No. 4 and be concluded after affording all parties a due opportunity to be heard

The Court further mandated that appropriate action be taken based on the inquiry findings, with the entire exercise to be completed within two months from the receipt of the order