Charge sheet issued by an incompetent authority who is also the complainant is legally unsustainable.

The applicant, serving as a Nursing Superintendent at the Agartala Health Unit under N.F. Railway, was issued a Charge Sheet on 08.11.2021

The Charge Sheet alleged that on 27.10.2021, the applicant abused Respondent No. 6 (Dr. Samir Debbarma) and misbehaved with several other staff members at the Agartala unit

At the time of the incident, the applicant was posted at Agartala, whereas the Charge Sheet was issued by Respondent No. 6 in his capacity as the Chief Medical Superintendent at Badarpur

The applicant challenged the Charge Sheet under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, contending that it was issued by an incompetent authority and that the issuing officer was the alleged victim of the misconduct

1. Whether the Charge Sheet was issued by the competent disciplinary authority given that the applicant was posted at Agartala while the issuing authority was based at Badarpur

2. Whether the Charge Sheet is legally sustainable when issued by an individual who is the alleged victim of the misconduct, in light of the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause

The court applied the fundamental administrative law principle of Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), which dictates that a person cannot act as a disciplinary authority in a matter where they are the complainant or victim

It further relied on the requirement that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the specific "competent authority" having jurisdiction over the employee’s place of posting at the time of the incident

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985

The Tribunal found that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was working at the Agartala Health Unit, not at Badarpur

Consequently, the competent disciplinary authority was the Chief Medical Superintendent at Agartala, rendering the Chief Medical Superintendent at Badarpur (Respondent No. 6) an "incompetent authority" to issue the Charge Sheet

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that Respondent No. 6 was the primary victim of the alleged abuse

By issuing the Charge Sheet himself, Respondent No. 6 violated the principles of natural justice, as a victim cannot exercise disciplinary powers over the same incident

The respondents admitted that the applicant was posted at Agartala and that Respondent No. 6 was indeed the victim of the alleged behavior

The Tribunal granted the respondents liberty to initiate fresh proceedings through the competent authority at Agartala in accordance with the law

No costs were awarded