Supreme Court emphasizes impartiality in disciplinary proceedings, reinstates respondent with back wages.

The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, emphasizing impartiality and fairness in disciplinary proceedings. The Court found bias in the disciplinary inquiry committee, consisting of members involved in the decision-making process, leading to prejudice against the respondent. Due to this bias, the Court reinstated the respondent with 50% back wages and continuity of service, highlighting the importance of objectivity in such proceedings and the adverse effects of perceived bias on fairness. The decision aimed to rectify the injustice caused by the biased inquiry and ensure the respondent's rights were upheld.

---

---

Issues:
1. Bias in disciplinary inquiry committee consisting of members who were also part of the decision-making board.
2. Legitimacy of decision-making process and fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
3. Entitlement to back wages and continuity of service.

Issue 1: Bias in Disciplinary Inquiry Committee
The appeal challenged the High Court's decision to set aside the resolution of the Cantonment Board, Pune, removing the respondent from service due to bias in the disciplinary inquiry committee. The respondent, a Sectional Engineer (Electrical), was charged with misconduct related to estimates preparation. The Enquiry Committee, consisting of three members who were also part of the Cantonment Board, found the charges proved. The High Court held that the participation of the Enquiry Committee members in the decision-making process vitiated the inquiry, creating a bias that prejudiced the respondent. The Division Bench agreed, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice and the real apprehension of bias in the decision-making process.

Issue 2: Legitimacy of Decision-Making Process
The Court emphasized the importance of impartiality and objectivity in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Citing legal precedents, the Court highlighted the principle that a person cannot be a judge in their own case. The participation of the disciplinary committee members, who found the respondent guilty, in the decision-making process to dismiss him from service was deemed biased and unfair. The Court referred to various cases and legal experts' opinions to support the view that objectivity is essential in disciplinary proceedings, and any bias, even if perceived, can undermine the fairness of the process. The Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to set aside the orders of the Cantonment Board and the appellate authorities due to the apparent bias in the decision-making process.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Back Wages and Continuity of Service
Regarding the payment of back wages, the Court considered the respondent's entitlement based on the findings of bias in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court noted that while grant of back wages depends on the circumstances of each case, in this instance, the respondent was found guilty due to a biased inquiry. Therefore, the Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages and continuity of service. The Court also took into account the time elapsed since the initial decision, concluding that it would be unfair to require the respondent to proceed afresh in the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the reinstatement of the respondent with the specified benefits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and fairness in disciplinary proceedings. The judgment highlighted the impact of bias on the decision-making process and affirmed the entitlement of the respondent to back wages and continuity of service based on the findings of bias in the initial disciplinary inquiry.

---