Domestic Enquiry Is Not Vitiated by Managerial Authorities Performing Multiple Administrative and Disciplinary Roles

The Petitioner, employed as a Chowkidar with M/s Tin Box Co. since 1988, was dismissed from service on May 15, 1998, following a domestic enquiry into allegations of unauthorized absence starting May 21, 1997.

The Petitioner claimed he was on sanctioned leave and later fell ill, providing medical certificates which the Management alleged were false.

The Petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, alleging the enquiry was biased because a partner of the Management, Sh. Vikram Mehra, acted as the complainant, witness, and disciplinary authority.

The Labour Court, via an order dated September 02, 2006, upheld the enquiry as fair and, by an Award dated September 11, 2006, held the termination legal.

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226.

1. Whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated by institutional bias or violation of principles of natural justice due to the multiple roles played by a partner of the Management.

2. Whether the findings of the Labour Court affirming the misconduct and the proportionality of the punishment were perverse or dictated by no evidence.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of Nemo judex in causa sua (no man shall be a judge in his own cause).

the "prejudice doctrine" established in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, which mandates that procedural irregularities only vitiate an enquiry if they cause actual prejudice to the delinquent.

Regarding the scope of judicial review under Article 226, the court relied on B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which restrict courts from re-appreciating evidence or acting as an appellate authority unless the decision is shockingly disproportionate or based on no evidence.

The Court observed that while Sh. Vikram Mehra performed multiple administrative roles, the adjudicatory function was performed by an independent Enquiry Officer, Sh. Anjum Kumar, whose impartiality remained unchallenged by material evidence.

The Court noted that in small establishments, administrative overlap is common and does not inherently constitute legal bias.

Applying the S.K. Sharma test, the Court found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice, as he participated fully in the proceedings and cross-examined witnesses.

Regarding the merits of the absence, the Court held that under Article 226, it cannot substitute the findings of fact made by the Labour Court if they are based on a "preponderance of probabilities" and supported by some evidence.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the Labour Court’s Award dated September 11, 2006. The writ petition was dismissed, and the termination of the Petitioner’s services was upheld.