Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an official involved in the underlying allegations are void due to bias.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was accused of misbehavior and assault following an incident on 12.01.2018

Sri Bipin Bihari Mohanty (Respondent No. 6), the then Superintendent of Post Offices (SPO) and Disciplinary Authority (DA), lodged an FIR against the applicant on 20.01.2018

Subsequently, Respondent No. 6 placed the applicant under suspension on 01.02.2018, issued a Rule 14 charge sheet on 01.03.2018, and appointed the Inquiry Officer (IO) and Presenting Officer (PO)

During the pendency of the inquiry, Respondent No. 6 was transferred. His successor, Sri Sarbeswar Mishra, passed the final order of dismissal on 28.10.2019

The applicant’s statutory appeal and revision were rejected on 30.04.2021 and 20.12.2021, respectively

The applicant challenged these orders on the ground that the initiation of the proceedings was biased since the complainant himself acted as the Disciplinary Authority.

1. Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of a charge sheet by an officer who is also the complainant/informant in the criminal case against the delinquent violates the principles of natural justice

2. Whether a punishment order passed by a successor officer can be sustained if the foundational disciplinary process was initiated by a biased predecessor

The court applied the fundamental legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria causa (no man shall be a judge in his own cause), asserting that judicial and quasi-judicial actions must be free from bias

It relied on Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of UP & Ors., which held that a DA who is a witness or has personal interest in the allegations stands disqualified

The court further invoked the doctrine of sublato fundamento cadit opus (if the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls), establishing that if the initiation of proceedings is illegal, subsequent orders cannot be sustained

Precedents like Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana were used to clarify that a "reasonable apprehension of bias" is sufficient to vitiate proceedings

The Tribunal observed that Respondent No. 6 was directly involved in the allegations as he had personally lodged the FIR against the applicant

Despite this personal stake, he approved the initiation of the Departmental Proceeding (DP), issued the charges, and evaluated the applicant's preliminary defense

The Tribunal reasoned that while the final punishment was awarded by a successor, the "very initiation" of the process was tainted by bias

It held that a Disciplinary Authority involved in the allegations must refrain from acting in an adjudicatory capacity to ensure fair play

The Tribunal concluded that the DA's role as the informant made him a party to the cause, thereby disqualifying him from initiating the inquiry.

Under the principle of sublato fundamento cadit opus, the subsequent dismissal order, appellate order, and revisional order were deemed legally unsustainable because the foundation (the charge sheet) was void

It held that the proceedings suffered from a "flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice" due to bias

The court directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential service benefits, deeming him to have continued in service from the date of dismissal, though backwages were specifically excluded

The respondents were ordered to comply within 60 days